Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (1.35 seconds)
Documents citing Hari Ram Kakkar vs Union Of India And Others on 1 June, 2001

Smt. Chatro Devi vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 3 March, 2005

In addition to the above, it is also necessary to mention a decision of another Division Bench of this Court in Hari Ram Kakkar v. Union of India and Ors., 2002 (61) DRJ 86 (DB). The petitioner therein had filed objections under Section 5A of the Act. The Division Bench fully endorsed the reasoning given in Balak Ram-III in respect of the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act pertaining to village Satbari. The Division Bench noted in paragraph 4 of the Report that the facts of the case show that there is no record of any hearing conducted by the previous Collector under Section 5A of the Act or by the Collector who submitted the report to the appropriate Government. There was, therefore, a complete negation of the right conferred on land owners under Section 5A of the Act. On the issue whether the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act is administrative or quasi-judicial or judicial, the Division Bench held (in paragraph 6 of the Report) that:
Delhi High Court Cites 69 - Cited by 14 - S Kumar - Full Document

Smt. Chatro Devi And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. [Along With ... on 20 December, 2006

11. The decision in Hari Ram v. Union of India , relied upon by the petitioners, was distinguished observing that in the case in hand, the records had been produced to show that hearings were attended by the objectors either personally or through authorised representatives. The Court also observed that public interest should get precedence over private interest and that number of petitions having been dismissed in relation to the same notifications, acceptance of the objections raised by the owners in the present cases which are in any case without any substance would frustrate and impede the Planned Development of Delhi. The Court observed:
Delhi High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 38 - T S Thakur - Full Document

Shri R.D. Bhanot vs Union Of India & Others on 28 November, 2008

In addition to the above, it is also necessary to mention a decision of another Division Bench of this Court in Hari Ram Kakkar vs. Union of India & Ors., 2002 (61) DRJ 86 (DB). The petitioner therein had filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act. The Division Bench fully endorsed the reasoning given in Balak Ram- III in respect of the inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act pertaining to village Satbari. The Division Bench noted in paragraph 4 of the Report that the facts of the case show WP(C) No1151/86 Page 6 of 25 that there is no record of any hearing conducted by the previous Collector under Section 5-A of the Act or by the Collector who submitted the report to the appropriate Government. There was, therefore, a complete negation of the right conferred on land owners under Section 5-A of the Act. On the issue whether the inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is administrative or quasi-judicial or judicial, the Division Bench held (in paragraph 6 of the Report) that:-
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 5 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Ex.Sep.Sri Chand vs Union Of India & Ors. on 9 January, 2012

Hari Ram v. Union of India & Ors., 2003 (2) SCT 582 (Delhi) DB; Ex. Cfn Maha Singh Dagar v. Union of India & Ors., O.A.No.64/2009 and Ex. Cra Kulwant Singh Rathee v. Union of India & Ors., T.A.No.184/2009 and the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 4817/2011, Ram Niwas Bedharak v. Union of India & Anr., wherein the decision of the Tribunal dismissing the petition on the ground of delay and latches though the petition pertains to pension/disability pension was set aside and the OA filed by the applicant was restored for adjudication on merits by the Tribunal.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - A Kumar - Full Document

Bhule Ram vs . Uoi on 23 February, 2007

9. ISSUE No. 2 & 3 : Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the potentiality of land of village Jasola and Aali is same and the rate of land in village Aali be assessed on the basis of rates assessed in village Jasola. He has further referred to judgment passed by the reference court in LAC No. 15/04 entitled Hari Ram vs. UOI wherein land notified u/s 4 on 6.4.64 in village Jasola acquired vide Award No.6-D/86-87 was assessed @ Rs. 28,000/- per bigha.
Delhi District Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vinod Kumar Etc. vs . Uoi on 24 February, 2007

9. ISSUE No. 2 & 3 : Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the potentiality of land of village Jasola and Aali is same and the rate of land in village Aali be assessed on the basis of rates assessed in village Jasola. He has further referred to judgment passed by the reference court in LAC No. 15/04 entitled Hari Ram vs. UOI wherein land notified u/s 4 on 6.4.64 in village Jasola acquired vide Award No.6-D/86-87 was assessed @ Rs. 28,000/- per bigha. In support of the contention the counsel has further referred and relied Contd.....
Delhi District Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Samman Construction & Finance (P) ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 October, 2019

6. The Land & Building Department- Respondent No. 4 and Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) - Respondent No. 5, in a common counter affidavit, have stated that the possession of the subject land was taken and handed over to the beneficiary department on 14th July 1987. It has been also stated that the recorded owners had challenged the acquisition proceeding in W.P.(C) No. 919/1986, titled as Hari Ram Kakkar vs. Union of India & Ors.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - S Narula - Full Document

Sadhna Gupta & Ors. vs Shish Pal & Anr. on 12 July, 2016

He claimed that sale deed-cum-assignment deed was bogus, since by the date of its execution i.e. 22.11.2003, the enhancement of compensation EX.F.A. 25/2014 Page 29 of 37 in respect of the land of respondent No. 1 was a foregone conclusion in view of the judgment of this Court in RFA 461/1995 titled, 'Hari Ram Vs. Union of India' decided on 30.03.2001, SLP against which had already been dismissed.
Delhi High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 2 - V Sanghi - Full Document
1   2 Next