Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 74 (1.12 seconds)
Documents citing Nandeshwar Prasad And Another vs The State Of U. P. And Others on 26 April, 1963

Narendra Road Lines Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of U.P. And Others on 2 July, 2010

35. Smt. Sarita Shukla submits relying upon Munshi Singh vs. Union of India AIR 1973 SC 1150 (para-7) that Section 5A gives a substantial right ( Nandeshwar Prasad and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others AIR 1964 SC 1217). When a person's property is being threatened with acquisition, that right cannot be taken away, as if by a side wind. Sub section (2) of Section 5A 31 makes it obligatory on the Collector to give an objector an opportunity of being heard. After hearing all objections and making further enquiry he is to make a report to the Government containing his recommendations on the objections. The decision of the appropriate government on the objection is then final. The declaration under Section 6 is to be made after the appropriate government is satisfied, on a consideration of the report, if any, made by the Collector. The legislature has made complete provisions for the persons filed objections against the proposed acquisition and for disposal of objections. It is only in cases of urgency that special powers have been conferred on the appropriate government to dispense with the provisions of Section 5A, under Section 17 (4) of the Act.
Allahabad High Court Cites 89 - Cited by 7 - S Ambwani - Full Document

Jeevarathinam vs The Director Of Municipal ... on 17 December, 2009

10. Yet another argument that was made on the side of the petitioners is that the proposal of the construction of the over bridge was made long back and the urgency clause was invoked only in the year 2007. As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate and the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation, the proposal seems to have been made after due traffic study by appointing expert consultant and the proposal was submitted to the Government and the Government was pleased to approve the same in G.O.Ms.No.80 dated 11.06.2007. Absolutely, there is no delay. Even if there is a delay, in the given circumstances of the case the delay is well explained. Para 21 of the judgement of the Division Bench referred to above is usefully extracted here under:-
Madras High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs Surinder S on 11 October, 2012

“Section 5-A embodies a very just and wholesome principle that a person whose property is being or is intended to be acquired should have a proper and reasonable opportunity of persuading the authorities concerned that acquisition of the property belonging to that person should not be made. We may refer to the observation of this court in Nandeshwar Prasad v. State of U.P that the right to file objections under Section 5-A is a substantial right when a person's property is being threatened with acquisition and that right cannot be taken away as if by a side wind. Sub-section (2) of Section 5-A makes it obligatory on the Collector to give an objector an opportunity of being heard. After hearing all objections and making further inquiry he is to make a report to the appropriate Government containing his recommendation on the objections. The decision of the appropriate Government on the objections is then final. The declaration under Section 6 has to be made after the appropriate Government is satisfied, on a consideration of the report, if any, made by the Collector under Section 5-A(2). The legislature has, therefore, made complete provisions for the persons interested to file objections against the proposed acquisition and for the disposal of their objections.” (emphasis supplied)
Supreme Court of India Cites 51 - Cited by 2 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

S R Cold Storage vs Union Of India And 3 Others on 11 August, 2022

"9. The importance of Section 5-A cannot be overemphasised. It is conceived from natural justice and has matured into manhood in the maxim of audi alteram partem i.e. every person likely to be adversely affected by a decision must be granted a meaningful opportunity of being heard. This right cannot be taken away by a side wind, as so powerfully and pellucidly stated in Nandeshwar Prasad v. State of U.P. [AIR 1964 SC 1217]. So stringent is this right that it mandates that the person who heard and considered the objections can alone decide them; and not even his successor is competent to do so even on the basis of the materials collected by his predecessor. Furthermore, the decision on the objections should be available in a self-contained, speaking and reasoned order; reasons cannot be added to it later as that would be akin to putting old wine in new bottles.
Allahabad High Court Cites 70 - Cited by 1 - J Banerji - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next