Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1817 (0.88 seconds)
Documents citing Pune Municipalc Corp.& Anr vs Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors on 24 January, 2014

Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Secretary vs Tarun Kapahi on 17 March, 2023

However thereafter and despite the above, relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Another vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Others reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183, the High Court has allowed the writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have been lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ronny Jockydsouza And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 14 October, 2024

32. Another ground which was faintly urged was that the compensation amount in Writ Petition No.11997 of 2016 was deposited in the Government account or in any event, the same was tendered to the Petitioners in the said Petition. Firstly, there is no clarity on this issue. Secondly, this position was never clearly projected. Thirdly, this is not some case of discovering new or essential matter or evidence that the State Government could not have discovered despite due diligence. Fourthly and most pertinently, a mere deposit in a separate bank account or even tendering of the amount was not accepted as sufficient to save the acquisition in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation Vs Harakchand Solanki (supra). Therefore, even based on this ground, which was faintly urged, no case for review is made out even if we condone the inordinate delay of 1679 days, i.e. 4 years and 7 months in instituting the Review Petition, no case is made out to allow the Review Petition.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - M S Sonak - Full Document

William Anton Dsouza vs State Of Maharashtra Thr General ... on 14 October, 2024

32. Another ground which was faintly urged was that the compensation amount in Writ Petition No.11997 of 2016 was deposited in the Government account or in any event, the same was tendered to the Petitioners in the said Petition. Firstly, there is no clarity on this issue. Secondly, this position was never clearly projected. Thirdly, this is not some case of discovering new or essential matter or evidence that the State Government could not have discovered despite due diligence. Fourthly and most pertinently, a mere deposit in a separate bank account or even tendering of the amount was not accepted as sufficient to save the acquisition in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation Vs Harakchand Solanki (supra). Therefore, even based on this ground, which was faintly urged, no case for review is made out even if we condone the inordinate delay of 1679 days, i.e. 4 years and 7 months in instituting the Review Petition, no case is made out to allow the Review Petition.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - M S Sonak - Full Document

Natha Shamrao Deshmukh (Kamble) vs Rajagonda Bimgonda Patil on 14 October, 2024

32. Another ground which was faintly urged was that the compensation amount in Writ Petition No.11997 of 2016 was deposited in the Government account or in any event, the same was tendered to the Petitioners in the said Petition. Firstly, there is no clarity on this issue. Secondly, this position was never clearly projected. Thirdly, this is not some case of discovering new or essential matter or evidence that the State Government could not have discovered despite due diligence. Fourthly and most pertinently, a mere deposit in a separate bank account or even tendering of the amount was not accepted as sufficient to save the acquisition in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation Vs Harakchand Solanki (supra). Therefore, even based on this ground, which was faintly urged, no case for review is made out even if we condone the inordinate delay of 1679 days, i.e. 4 years and 7 months in instituting the Review Petition, no case is made out to allow the Review Petition.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - M S Sonak - Full Document

The State Of Maharashtra vs Rajagonda Bimgonda Patil on 14 October, 2024

32. Another ground which was faintly urged was that the compensation amount in Writ Petition No.11997 of 2016 was deposited in the Government account or in any event, the same was tendered to the Petitioners in the said Petition. Firstly, there is no clarity on this issue. Secondly, this position was never clearly projected. Thirdly, this is not some case of discovering new or essential matter or evidence that the State Government could not have discovered despite due diligence. Fourthly and most pertinently, a mere deposit in a separate bank account or even tendering of the amount was not accepted as sufficient to save the acquisition in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation Vs Harakchand Solanki (supra). Therefore, even based on this ground, which was faintly urged, no case for review is made out even if we condone the inordinate delay of 1679 days, i.e. 4 years and 7 months in instituting the Review Petition, no case is made out to allow the Review Petition.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - M S Sonak - Full Document

The State Of Maharashtra vs Rajagonda Bhimgonda Patil on 14 October, 2024

32. Another ground which was faintly urged was that the compensation amount in Writ Petition No.11997 of 2016 was deposited in the Government account or in any event, the same was tendered to the Petitioners in the said Petition. Firstly, there is no clarity on this issue. Secondly, this position was never clearly projected. Thirdly, this is not some case of discovering new or essential matter or evidence that the State Government could not have discovered despite due diligence. Fourthly and most pertinently, a mere deposit in a separate bank account or even tendering of the amount was not accepted as sufficient to save the acquisition in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation Vs Harakchand Solanki (supra). Therefore, even based on this ground, which was faintly urged, no case for review is made out even if we condone the inordinate delay of 1679 days, i.e. 4 years and 7 months in instituting the Review Petition, no case is made out to allow the Review Petition.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - M S Sonak - Full Document

Virendra Singh & Ors. vs . State Of Rajasthan & Ors. on 29 October, 2014

27. We are of the view that learned Single Judge erred in law, even after noticing the admitted facts and the judgments in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. (supra), and Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), in holding that since the possession of about 95% of the lands, under acquisition, has already been surrendered/handed over by the concerned land owners, the entire project of Ring Road and corridor would be stalled, if the interim relief, as prayed for by the appellants/petitioners, is granted, and for which, earthwork and gravel work in 20 kms. of the road has already started.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - S Ambwani - Full Document

Shri Mandir Sitaramji And Another vs Union Of India And Others on 21 November, 2014

13.So, cumulative effect of the above discussion is that as this court is dealing with the present matter u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, so, the present matter is not governed by the section 24 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013. Since the amount of awarded compensation has already been deposited by the LAC in the court and the same has been deposited in the form of FDR vide order dated 6.9.2014, so the petitioner cannot be benefited of section 24 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 and the Ld. Sr. counsel for the petitioner no.2 has very fairly admitted that in view of the law laid down by the apex court in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr vs Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & others, CA No.877/2014, the petitioners are not entitled to get any relief u/s 24 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

(A) Shobha Pramanik Wife Of Late Kisto ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 June, 2024

(Emphasis supplied) has overruled the decision of the said Pune Municipal Corporation & Another vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Others (supra) including all other decision in which Pune Municipal Corporation & Another vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Others (supra) has been followed; learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners modify their prayer and submits that the petitioners intend to file a representation to the respondent 4 W.P.(C) No.4198 of 2016 & other allied cases No.4 for payment of awarded amount and the respondent No.4 be directed to release the same in favour of the petitioners within a reasonable time.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - A K Choudhary - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next