Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 74 (1.75 seconds)
Documents citing Arnold Rodricks & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 14 March, 1966

Ramchandra Maroti And Ors. vs The Collector (Land Acquisition ... on 15 March, 1974

What is the nature of such a scheme has also been considered by the Supreme Court in Arnold Rodricks v. State of Maharashtra . In the said case the provisions of Bombay Commissioners of Divisions Act and the notification under amending Land Acquisition Act were challenged. The said notification was also challenged on the ground that it was issued in colourable exercise of the power and was not for the public purpose. It was contended in the said case that the notifications were issued to subserve not a public purpose but some private purpose, and the State Government was not entitled to acquire property from A and give it to B. In this Context it was observed by the Supreme Court as under:-
Bombay High Court Cites 59 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Kedar Nath Yadav vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 31 August, 2016

In Arnold Rodricks v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1966 SC 1788 this Court held that the phrase “public purpose” has no static connotation, which is fixed for all times. It is also not possible to lay down a definition of what public purpose is, as the concept of public purpose may change from time to time. It, however, involves in it an element of general interest of the community which should be regarded as a public purpose.
Supreme Court of India Cites 149 - Cited by 27 - V G Gowda - Full Document

The Government Of Andhra Pradesh ... vs Dr.V.Vasumathi Reddy, on 1 December, 2022

"3. Obviously, therefore, the petitioners have contended that the acquisition is not for a public purpose; it is a mala fide acquisition and a vague public purpose of defence and so acquisition is not valid in law. Precedents have been copiously cited in the High Court in that behalf. The learned single Judge and the Division Bench elaborately considered them and held that acquisition for defence purpose is a public purpose. Arnold Rodricks vs. State of Maharashtra's case (AIR 1966 SC 1788) to State of T.N. vs. L.Krishnan's case ((1996) 1 SCC 250) settled the controversy holding that acquisition for housing development is not a vague purpose. Expansion of dockyard for defence purpose is a public purpose. Publication of declaration under Section 6 accords conclusiveness to public purpose. It is for the appropriate Government to take a decision whether a particular land is needed for a public purpose or not and the Court cannot substitute its opinion on the public purpose to that of the appropriate Government. We wholly agree with the view taken by the High Court in that behalf.
Telangana High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Alapati Seshadri Rao & Co. And Ors. vs The Agricultural Market Committee, ... on 1 March, 1976

4. On the same principle sub-delegation is also valid, if permitted by the Act, provided sufficient guidance is given, and it is intended to achieve the objects of the Act. For instances where such sub-delegation has been held to be valid, refer to H. Bagla v. State of M.P. , where the legislature authorised the Central Government to delegate its powers to make order under S. 3 of Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act (24 of 1946) not only to the State Government but also to any officer subordinate to the Central or State Government; George Walkem v. L.M.D.P. Board, (AIR 1939 PC 36), where the Lt. Governor delegated the power of making schemes to the Marketing Board; Union of India v. Bhanamal Gulzarimal Ltd., where the Controller was delegated the power by the Government to fix the maximum prices for Iron and Steel; W.I. Theaters v. Municipal Corporation, Poona, where the Municipality was held entitled to levy any other tax for the purposes of the Act, though the nature for the purposes of the Act, though the nature of that tax has not been enumerated by the Act; State of Bombay v. Shivabalak , (AIR 1965 SC 6610 where it was held that the delegate can authorise his subordinate to gather information to enable him to pass the necessary orders required by the statute; Arnold Rodricks v. State of Maharashtra, , where it was held that there is no difference between a case where the legislature authorising sub-delegation by statute or by conferring power on the State Government to confer duties on Commissioners (Newly introduced) or other officers performing executive and revenue duties; Hapur Municipality v. Raghuvendra, where it was held that the power to levy local taxes is vested in a local body for their local needs which depends upon local enquiries can be left to the representative bodies in which event there can be no excessive delegation; Barium Chemicals Ltd., v. Company Law Board if it is warranted by the express provisions or by necessary implication from the statute, such as the control retained by a nominee of the legislature; Khambhalia Municipality v. Gujarat State, where the delegation by the Government to the Development Commissioner to declare an area to be a gram or nagar was held to be valid; Delhi Municipality v. B.G.S. & W. Mills , (AIR 19689 SC 1232) and J.R.G. Mfg. Asscn.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kedar Nath Yadav vs State Of West Bengal . on 31 August, 2016

In Arnold Rodricks v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1966 SC 1788 this Court held that the phrase “public purpose” has no static connotation, which is fixed for all times. It is also not possible to lay down a definition of what public purpose is, as the concept of public purpose may change from time to time. It, however, involves in it an element of general interest of the community which should be regarded as a public 129 purpose.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 140 - Cited by 0 - V G Gowda - Full Document

Ramji Popatbhai Patel And Anr. vs Jamnadas Shah And Ors. on 16 April, 1968

2. There were only two grounds originally taken in the petition but by an amendment made with leave of the Court before the petition reached hearing, two further grounds were added and therefore there were in all four grounds on which the validity of the impugned notifications was challenged in the petition. The first ground related to the question whether the Commissioner, Rajkot Division had authority to issue the impugned notifications but this ground was not pressed as it is concluded by a decision given by a Division Bench of this Court in Kanaiyalal Maneklal Chinai and Ors. v. The Stale of Gujarat and Ors. VII G.L.R., 717 and the view taken in that decision is confirmed by the Supreme Court in Arnold Rodricks and another v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. . The second ground raised the question whether the purpose of low income group housing scheme was a public purpose but this ground too was not pressed as it could not be contended that the provision of housing for persons belonging to the low income group was not a public purpose. The other two grounds of challenge were:
Gujarat High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 3 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Smt. Manju Lata Agarwal Wife Of Narain ... vs State Of U.P. Through Secretary, Avas ... on 20 September, 2007

In Daulat Singh Surana and Ors. v. First Land Acquisition Collector and Ors. (2007) 1 SCC 641, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the meaning and scope of the expression "public purpose" considered large umber of its earlier judgments, particularly, State of Bombay v. Bhanji Munji and Anr. ; State of Bombay v. Ali Gulshan ; State of Bombay v. R.S. Nanji ; Babu Barkya Thakur v. State of Bombay and Ors. ; Somawanti v. State of Punjab and Ors. ; and Arnold Rodricks and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. , and came to the conclusion that it is not possible to precisely define the expression "public purpose" as it would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, the Government is the best judge to decide as to whether the public purpose is served by issuing the Notification for acquisition of land. The public purpose must include an object in which the general interest of the community as opposed to the particular interest of individual, is directly and vitally concerned. Public purpose is bound to change with time and the prevailing conditions in the given area. Therefore, it cannot be defined within a particular framework. The declaration made by the Government in this regard is final. The Court has a limited scope of judicial review to interfere only if it is satisfied that it was a colourable exercise of power, on being challenged by the aggrieved party. The Court further held as under:
Allahabad High Court Cites 112 - Cited by 16 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Mrs. Roma Bose And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 16 June, 1978

In Arnold Rodricks v. State of Maharashtra a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act which stated that the land was needed for "development and utilisation of the said land as an industrial and residential area" was held to be sufficient specification of the public purpose within the Land Acquisition Act and the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 were not bad for vagueness.
Calcutta High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 4 - B C Ray - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next