Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 245 (1.23 seconds)
Documents citing Gulam Mustafa & Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 18 September, 1975

Hulluraiah vs State Of Karnataka on 3 April, 2025

30. The learned counsel for respondents also submit that once land is acquired, its non-utilization for a specific period does not invalidate the acquisition, which view is supported by a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gulam Mustafa v. State of Maharashtra (1976 1 SCC 800). They argue that landowners cannot challenge the acquisition merely because the land has not been immediately used for its intended purpose. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted thus:
Karnataka High Court Cites 61 - Cited by 0 - K Somashekar - Full Document

Narasahanumaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 April, 2025

30. The learned counsel for respondents also submit that once land is acquired, its non-utilization for a specific period does not invalidate the acquisition, which view is supported by a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gulam Mustafa v. State of Maharashtra (1976 1 SCC 800). They argue that landowners cannot challenge the acquisition merely because the land has not been immediately used for its intended purpose. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted thus:
Karnataka High Court Cites 61 - Cited by 0 - K Somashekar - Full Document

Smt. K.Radhamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 April, 2025

30. The learned counsel for respondents also submit that once land is acquired, its non-utilization for a specific period does not invalidate the acquisition, which view is supported by a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gulam Mustafa v. State of Maharashtra (1976 1 SCC 800). They argue that landowners cannot challenge the acquisition merely because the land has not been immediately used for its intended purpose. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted thus:
Karnataka High Court Cites 61 - Cited by 0 - K Somashekar - Full Document

Smt. Muniyamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 April, 2025

30. The learned counsel for respondents also submit that once land is acquired, its non-utilization for a specific period does not invalidate the acquisition, which view is supported by a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gulam Mustafa v. State of Maharashtra (1976 1 SCC 800). They argue that landowners cannot challenge the acquisition merely because the land has not been immediately used for its intended purpose. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted thus:
Karnataka High Court Cites 61 - Cited by 0 - K Somashekar - Full Document

S.K. Mehrotra, Advocate vs Lucknow Development Authority Thr.Its ... on 17 May, 2017

45. It is also settled by now that once the original acquisition is valid and title has vested in the State/Authority then how it uses the excess land is not of any concern of the original owner and cannot be made a ground for invalidating the acquisition. A valid acquisition cannot be voided because long after, the Authority diverts its public purpose other than shown at the time of initial acquisition. The excess land can also be sold by public auction, the erstwhile owner cannot claim restitution of the part of the land as it vests in the State free from all encumbrances. (Vide Gulam Mustafa & Ors Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., AIR 1977 SC 448; Chandragauda Ramgonda Patil & Anr Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors (1996) 6 SCC 405; C. Padma & Ors. Vs. Dy. Secretary to the Govt of Tamil Nadu & Ors (1997) 2 SCC 627; State of Kerala & Ors Vs. M. Bhaskaran Pillai & Anr., AIR 1997 SC 2703; Tulsi Cooperative Housing Society, Hyderabad etc, etc Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 3667 and Govt. of A.P. & Anr Vs. Syed Akbar., AIR 2005 SC 492).
Allahabad High Court Cites 149 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Jagtar Singh Etc vs State Of Punjab Etc on 9 February, 2012

In a similar situation, in Gulam Mustafa v. State of Maharashtra case AIR 1977 SC 448, this Court held as under: (SCC p. 802, para 5) "5. ... once the original acquisition is valid and title has vested in the municipality, how it uses the excess land is no concern of the original owner and cannot be the basis for invalidating the acquisition. There is no principle of law by which a valid compulsory acquisition stands voided because long later the requiring authority diverts it to a public purpose other than the one stated in the ... declaration."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 0 - H Gupta - Full Document

Deepak Sood And Others vs Cpri on 3 December, 2024

"9...There is no explanation whatsoever for the inordinate delay in filing the writ petitions. Merely because full enhanced compensation amount was not paid to the respondents, that itself was not a ground to condone the delay and laches in filing the writ petition. In our view, the High Court was also not right in ordering restoration of land to the respondents on the ground that the land acquired was not used for which it had been acquired. It is a well-settled position in law that after passing the award and taking possession under Section 16 of the Act, the acquired land vests with the Government free from all encumbrances. Even if the land is not used for the purpose for which it is acquired, the landowner does not get any right to ask for revesting the land in him and to ask for restitution of the possession. This Court as early as in 1976 in Gulam Mustafa v. State of Maharashtra, (1976) 1 SCC 800 in para 5 has stated thus: (SCC p. 802, para 5) "5. At this stage Shri Deshpande complained that actually the municipal committee had sold away the excess land marking them out into separate plots for a housing colony. Apart from the fact that a housing colony is a public necessity, once the original acquisition is valid and title has vested in the municipality, how it uses the excess land is no concern of the original owner and cannot be the basis for invalidating the acquisition. There is no 94 (2003) 1 SCC 335 principle of law by which a valid compulsory acquisition stands voided because long after the requiring authority diverts it to a public purpose other than the one stated in the Section 6(3) declaration." (emphasis supplied) 129.5.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sahdev Prasad Yadav & Ors vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 9 November, 2022

They accepted the compensation amount as per the award and sought for enhancement of the compensation amount without challenging the notification issued under Sections 4 and 6. Having sought for enhancement of compensation only, they filed writ petition even three years after the appeals were disposed of by the High Court in the matter of enhancement -4- of compensation. There is no explanation whatsoever for the inordinate delay in filing the writ petitions. Merely because full enhanced compensation amount was not paid to the respondents, that itself was not a ground to condone the delay and laches in filing the writ petition. In our view, the High Court was also not right in ordering restoration of land to the respondents on the ground that the land acquired was not used for which it had been acquired. It is a well-settled position in law that after passing the award and taking possession under Section 16 of the Act, the acquired land vests with the Government free from all encumbrances. Even if the land is not used for the purpose for which it is acquired, the landowner does not get any right to ask for revesting the land in him and to ask for restitution of the possession. This Court as early as in 1976 in Gulam Mustafa v. State of Maharashtra [(1976) 1 SCC 800] in para 5 has stated thus: (SCC p. 802, para 5) "5. At this stage Shri Deshpande complained that actually the municipal committee had sold away the excess land marking them out into separate plots for a housing colony. Apart from the fact that a housing colony is a public necessity, once the original acquisition is valid and title has vested in the municipality, how it uses the excess land is no concern of the original owner and cannot be the basis for invalidating the acquisition. There is no principle of law by which a valid compulsory acquisition stands voided because long after the requiring authority diverts it to a public purpose other than the one stated in the Section 6(3) declaration."
Jharkhand High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 4 - K P Deo - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next