Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 34 (0.58 seconds)
Documents citing Rai Bahadur Ganga Bishnu Swaika & Ors vs Calcutta Pinjrapole Society & Ors on 30 October, 1967

Syed Mohammad Zakaria vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 24 September, 1986

Coming to the second ground of attack on the declaration contained in annexure 4, 1 should think that it is advisable, if the declaration states in an express language that the authority making it is satisfied that any particular land is needed for a public purpose. But even in absence of that, if the language used is with the expression 'it appears' still it has been held by the Supreme Court in Ganga Bishun Swaika v. Calcutta Pinjrapole Society, (supra) that it is not imperative that the satisfaction must be expressed in the declaration or that otherwise the notification would not be in accord with Section 6.
Patna High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - L M Sharma - Full Document

Syed Mohammad Zakaria vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. on 25 September, 1986

"Coming to the second ground of attack on the declaration contained in Annex. 4, I should think that it is advisable if the declaration states in an express language that the authority making it is satisfied that any particular land is needed for a public purpose. But even in absence of that, if the language used is with the expression 'it appears' still it has been held by the Supreme Court in Ganga Bishun Swaika v. Calcutta Pinjrapole Society, AIR 1968 SC 615 that it is not imperative that the satisfaction must be expressed in the declaration or that otherwise the notification would not be in accord with Section 6."
Patna High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - L M Sharma - Full Document

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

61. The proposition laid down in the aforementioned two judgments does not support the stance of the Chandigarh Administration that even though there is breach of the mandate of Section 5A read with Section 6(1), the Court cannot, after the issue of declaration under Section 6(1), nullify the acquisition proceedings. As a matter of fact, the ratio of both the judgments is that satisfaction of the appropriate Government envisaged in Section 6(1) must be preceded by consideration of the report prepared by the Collector after considering the objections filed under Section 5A and hearing the objectors. This necessarily implies that the Government must objectively apply its mind to the report of the Collector and the objections filed by the landowners and then take a decision whether or not the land is needed for the specified public purpose. A mechanical endorsement of the report of the Collector cannot be a substitute for the requirement of application of mind by the Government which must be clearly reflected in the record.
Supreme Court of India Cites 51 - Cited by 2 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

Ismail Gulam Mahmad Davji Patel vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 22 March, 1991

11. The learned Advocate for the petitioners lastly submitted that before issuing the notification under Section 6, the State Government ought to have verified whether the land is required by the G.I.D.C. or not, as large tract of land acquired by the G.I.D.C. is kept vacant for a number of years. In our view, there is no substance in this contention. In Section 6 Notification, it has been specifically stated that the Government was satisfied, after considering the report of the Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition), Ahmedabad that the said lands are needed to be acquired for the public purpose for the expansion of Ankleshwar Industrial Estate by the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation. For this purpose, Mr. Chhaya, rightly relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ganga Bishnu Swaika and Anr. v. Calcutta Pinjrapole Society and Ors. wherein the Court has observed that the fact that Section 5A inquiry was held and objections were filed and heard, the fact that the Additional Collector had recommended the acquisition and had sent his report to that effect and the Government thereafter issued Section 6 Notification would, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, show that the condition precedent as to satisfaction was fulfilled. Further, it is not required that once the land is acquired by the G.I.D.C., it should immediately develop it and dispose it of. For developing and disposal, some time- gap is bound to be there. Hence, it cannot be said that the G.I.D.C. is not in need of the land.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 61 - M B Shah - Full Document

Peerless General Finance And ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 1 July, 1988

29. Applying this test laid down by the Supreme Court, let me examine whether the Company Law Board was satisfied or could be satisfied on the basis of the materials on record "that the affairs of the company are being carried on in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the company or to public interest". The Company Law Board, in order to, be satisfied in this behalf, held that the petitioner-company had acted contrary to the Directions of the Reserve Bank of India in respect of the certificates under the old schemes, and in this context, it was held that as the company was spending 47.37% of the first year's subscription/collection on commission, bonus, field allowance, etc., it was established that it will not be possible for the company to comply with the Directions of the Reserve Bank of India with regard to the investment in approved securities, that subsequent years' subscriptions would diminish on account of lack of interest by commission agents and consequently, the schemes of the company would become unsuccessful causing substantial damage to public interest. In this connection, in accordance with the provisions of Section 408 of the Companies Act, the Company Law Board is to be satis fied that the affairs of the company are being conducted in a manner "prejudicial to the interest of the company or to public interest". Here, I find that the expression is in the present tense and not in the future or past tense. Even assuming that the finding, in this behalf, of the Company Law Board is correct, in that event, it was commenting on-something which may happen in the future and in the future it may be hald that the company would be acting in a manner prejudicial to public interest. The Legislature, in the particular case, significantly used the present tense and not the past or future tense.
Calcutta High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohon Koiri And Ors. vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 24 August, 1973

In such a case the Government would have to satisfy the Court by leading evidence that it was satisfied as inquired by Section 6 (Ganga Bishnu Swaika v. Calcutta Pinjrapole Society, ). In the present case, from the records placed before me it appears that the Draft Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published after the approval of the Deputy Secretary (Land Acquisition Dept.) was obtained on 1-3-1962. After the substance of the notification under Section 4 was caused to be published in accordance with the said section, objections were invited under Section 5-A of the Act and were also considered, and then a report under Section 5-A(2) was prepared on 12-11-1963 by the Second Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta. It appears that on 8th February, 1965, the Assistant Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Education Department, writes to the Commissioner of Presidency Division that he is directed by order of the Governor to convey administrative approval of the Governor to the acquisition in question required for the expansion and development of Kidderpur Academy. The Land and Land Revenue Department has been requested to take step for the acquisition of the land and to publish the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The draft declaration obtained the approval of the Deputy Secretary of the Land Acquisition on 26-2-1965. Thereafter the declaration dated 26th February, 1965 was issued under Section 6 of the Act, the said declaration being annexure 'B' to the petition. The said declaration states of the satisfaction of the Governor that the land is needed for a public purpose, viz., for the expansion and development of the Kidderpur Academy. The declaration also was expressed to be made by order of the Governor as required under Article 166(1) of the Constitution and the order was authenticated in the manner required by rules of the business. The fact that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was held and objections were filed and heard, the fact that the Second Land Acquisition Collector. Calcutta, had recommended the acquisition and had sent his report to that effect and the Government thereafter issued the notification under Section 6 would, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary show that the condition precedent as to satisfaction has been fulfilled.
Calcutta High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jatadhar Mitra And Ors. vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 3 June, 1969

But even if the foregoing words be held to be a recital that the Governor was satisfied that the instant case was a 'case of urgency' referred to in Sub-section (1), which would brook no delay as would be caused by an inquiry under Section 5A, it is still open to the petitioners to show by evidence that the Governor did not apply his mind to the question of urgency or acted mala fides (Cf. Ganga Bishnu v. Calcutta Pinjrapole Society, ). The broad fact in this case is that there were some existing educational institutions for which additional lands were needed, the question that additional lands were needed for their expansion or proper functioning is one thing and another thing to say that the need was so imperative that the lapse of time required for holding an inquiry under Section 5A could not be suffered. The use of the word 'etc', 'swimming pool', and the like show that this aspect of the matter was not fully attended to. There was no emergency, such as a natural calamity, to meet with which the lands were needed. To my mind the circumstances disclosed do not show that the Government applied its mind to the particular question, namely, whether the proceedings under Section 5A of the Act should be dispensed with. It is, however, not necessary to rest my decision upon this branch of the petitioner's case, because of my finding that the disputed lands not being 'arable' or 'waste' within the meaning of Sub-section (1) of Section 17, Sub-section (4) of that section could not be legitimately applied, to dispense with the proceeding under Section 5A.
Calcutta High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Sarungbam Joykumar Singh And Ors. vs State Of Manipur And Ors. on 31 July, 2006

In Ganga Bishnu Swaika and Anr. v. Calcutta Pinjrapole Society and Ors. the Supreme Court observed that satisfaction of the Government after consideration of the report, if any, made under Section 5A "is undoubtedly a condition precedent to a valid declaration, for, there can be no valid acquisition under the Act unless the Government is satisfied that the land to be acquired is needed for a public purpose".
Gauhati High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - B S Reddy - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next