Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 310 (2.47 seconds)
Documents citing Meera Sahni vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi & Ors on 15 July, 2008

Meera Sahni & Anr. vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 9 July, 2019

65. Since the petitioners have admitted that part demolition had been carried out, the aforesaid fact is of little significance. It is conceded fact that the petitioners had challenged the acquisition proceedings in the year 1983 when first two writ petitions were filed which were later dismissed. Another writ petition was filed. being W.P.(C).5918/1999, inter alia, seeking an order restraining the Land Acquisition Collector from taking possession of the land under Section 16 of the Act pursuant to the Award. That writ petition was also dismissed with costs. Special Leave Petition was filed in the Supreme Court of India which was also dismissed by means of a reported judgment in the case of Meera Sahni v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors, reported at (2008) 9 SCC 177. No protection with W.P.(C) 8241/2013 Page 52 of 61 regard to the possession was granted. It is the stand of the petitioners that only part of the property was demolished but the occupants continue to remain in the building, while it is the stand of the respondents that armed with the interim order, the petitioners re- entered the suit property.
Delhi High Court Cites 69 - Cited by 2 - G S Sistani - Full Document

Devi Prasad Chaudhary vs U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad And Others on 26 February, 2020

In Ajay Kishan Singhal v. Union of India: AIR 1996 SC 2677; Mahavir and Anr. v. Rural Institute, Amravati and Anr. : (1995) 5 SCC 335; Gian Chand v. Gopala and Ors. : (1995) 2 SCC 528; and Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and Ors. : (2008) 9 SCC 177, this Court categorically held that a person who purchases land after the publication of a Section 4 notification with respect to it, is not entitled to challenge the proceedings for the reason, that his title is void and he can at best claim compensation on the basis of vendor's title. In view of this, the sale of land after issuance of a Section 4 notification is void, and the purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings.
Allahabad High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Oruj Ahmed vs Rashiduddin & Ors on 30 September, 2014

15. Since it is not in dispute that Section 4 Notification was issued on CS(OS) 2310/2011 Page 7 of 12 4.4.1964 and a declaration under Section 6 was issued on 7.12.1966. Thereafter an award was made in the year 1983-84 and having regard to the settled position of law as detailed in Meera Sahni v. Lt.Governor of Delhi & Ors (supra) any sale in favour of the plaintiff would be a nullity as the plaintiff purchased the suit property in the year 2009 after sections 4 & 6 notifications and accordingly the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit.
Delhi High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - G S Sistani - Full Document

Wpa 11788 Of 202 vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 6 August, 2025

23. Appellant in respect of which acquisition proceeding has been initiated or completed is totally barred as after acquisition the land in question was vested to the State free from all encumbrances the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Mira Sahni Vs. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi reported in (2008) 9 SCC 177 When a piece of land is sought to be acquired, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is required to be issued by the State Government strictly in accordance with law. The said notification is also required to be followed by a declaration to be made under Section 20 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and with the issuance of such a notification any encumbrance created by the owner, or any transfer made after the issuance of such a notification would be deemed to be void and would not be binding on the Government. A number of decisions of this Court have recognised the aforesaid proposition of law wherein it was held that subsequent purchaser cannot challenge acquisition proceedings and also the validity of the notification or the irregularity in taking possession of the land after the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri. Manjunath. K vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 September, 2025

In the recent decision of this Court in Godfrey Phillips [DDA v. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd., (2022) 8 SCC 771 : (2022) 4 SCC (Civ) 525] after considering the other decisions on the right of the subsequent purchaser to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings i.e. Meera Sahni v. Lt. Governor of Delhi [Meera Sahni v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (2008) 9 SCC 177] and M. Venkatesh v. BDA [M. Venkatesh v. BDA, (2015) 17 SCC 1 : (2017) 5 SCC (Civ) 387] , it is specifically observed and held that subsequent purchaser has no right to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings.
Karnataka High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next