Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.40 seconds)

Ashok Kumar vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 20 November, 2003

"Notification Under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is dated 23.1.1965. it was followed by declaration made Under Section 6 of the Act on 7.12.1966. Petitioner's predecessor had challenged the acquisition proceedings by filing CW. 789/85 Hem Chand Gupta v. UOI. According to the petitioner interim Order passed on 10.4.1985 in the said writ petition was against dispossession only. CW. 789/95 was dismissed on 10.11.1994 in default for appearance and consequently the stay order also stood vacated. The petitioner claims to have acquired title to the property on 10.2.1993. The only challenge in the writ petition is that the acquisition proceedings are non-est in view of provisions of Section 11-A of the Act since the notifications issued on 23.11.1965 and 7.12.1966 stood lapsed on expiry of period of two years from the date of commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. This is the only challenge now made by the petitioner though challenge is also on other grounds but we make it clear that on the other points it will not be permissible for the petitioner to challenge the acquisition proceedings being a subsequent purchaser. Accordingly we confine this petition only to the extent aforementioned. The stand of the respondents is that the impugned award has been made within the period of limitation since there was stay of proceedings operating.
Delhi High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Pawan N. Chandra vs Rajasthan High Court And Anr. on 11 May, 2001

"14. The aforesaid observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court run counter to the law laid down by the Apex Court in E.G. Nam-budiri's case (supra), which has been approved by a larger bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandra Gupta and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. 1995 (1) SCC 23. The Court has emphasized very much on the confidentiality of the record as it has been observed that if it is communicated even to the officer/employee concerned, it will lose its confidentiality. The concerned employee has a right to make representation after the adverse entry is communicated to him.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Khem Chand & Others vs Union Of India & Anr. on 23 September, 2015

1. The present appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, „the Act‟) is directed against the judgment dated 02.07.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi (Reference Court) in LAC No. 182A/08, titled „Khem Chand & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.‟. By the impugned judgment, the reference petition made at the instance of the appellants under Section 18 of the Act to seek enhancement of compensation as awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC), has been dismissed on the ground of same being barred by limitation. The learned ADJ has held that the fair market value of the acquired land in question would be Rs. 16,750/- per bigha as on 26.03.1986, and that the appellants would have been entitled to the said compensation along with other statutory benefit, had the reference been made in time. However, since the same has been LA.App. No. 954/2010 Page 1 of 26 held to be barred by limitation, the appellants have been denied the said enhancement.
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - V Sanghi - Full Document

Subhash Gupta vs Dda on 6 November, 2023

It is further noteworthy to mention that after the dismissal of the said petition in Hem Chand Gupta & Ors. (supra), Award no.80G/70-71 was issued for the purpose of determining compensation U/s 4 of Land Acquisition Act with respect to land measuring 6 Bighas 7 Biswas of Khasra no. 2552/1156 (New Khasra no. 408) and also in respect of 8 Biswas of land under Khasra no. 241, which has been tendered in evidence as Ex. DW-1/7.
Delhi District Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1