Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 39 (0.65 seconds)
Documents citing Special Deputy Collector vs J. Sivaprakasam & Ors on 18 November, 2010

Eswari vs The State Of Tamil Nadu

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:32:44 pm ) W.P.Nos.2233, 2673, 3202 and 4084 of 2025 8.4 The question is whether the publication was duly made. The learned counsel for the petitioners collectively argue before this Court that they have never heard of the English newspaper 'Afternoon' or the Tamil daily. Hindi newspaper neither has any circulation in Tiruppur nor can be read by the landowners. In this regard, it can be observed that checklist extracted supra mentions clearly that the newspapers shall be of wide circulation in the area. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, CMDA Vs. Sivaprakasam and Others 16, which is relied upon by Mr. Sathish Parasaran, the learned Senior Counsel holds in paragraph No.20 (2) as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - D B Chakravarthy - Full Document

Snandy vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 4 April, 2012

Mr. Bose relies on the case of Supreme Court reported in Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition CMDA Vs. J. Sivaprakasan & Ors., reported in 2011 (1) SCC 330 for a proposition that the acquiring authority need not prove actual notice of the proposal to acquire under Section 4(1) of the Act to the person challenging the acquisition as the purpose of publication of the public notice provided under Section 4(1) of the Act is to give notice of the proposal of acquisition to the person concerned such notice can also be by way of an implied notice or a constructive notice.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chaman Kumar And Others vs Union Territory Of J&K And Others on 27 April, 2021

In The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, CMDA versus J. Sivaprakasan and others, 2011 (1) SCC 330, the Supreme Court inter alia opined that if there is failure to publish the notification in two daily newspapers or if the publication is in two newspapers that have no circulation at all in the locality, the notification and the consequential acquisition proceedings will be vitiated for the non-compliance of the essential condition of Section 4(1) of the Act.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - P Mithal - Full Document

Muzzafar Ahmed Beigh And Others vs State Of J&K And Others on 24 November, 2021

In „The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, CMDA versus J. Sivaprakasan and others,' (2011) 1 SCC 330, the Supreme Court inter alia opined that if there is failure to publish the notification in two daily newspapers or if the publication is in two newspapers that have no circulation at all in the locality, the notification and the consequential acquisition proceedings will be vitiated for the non- compliance of the essential condition of Section 4(1) of the Act.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - P Mithal - Full Document

Eknath S/O Punjaji Nawale vs The State Of Maharashtra on 30 April, 2012

In the case of Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition C.M.D.A. Vs J. Sivaprakasam and others [(2011) 1 SCC 330], the Apex Court has considered the similar requirement, incorporated in Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act of 1894, of publication of the notification in two news papers having circulation in the locality. The Apex Court held that the requirement is of publishing notification in two news papers having reasonably wide circulation. However, in ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:29:14 ::: 42 wp6872.11 paragraph 36 of the said judgment the Apex Court has held thus :-
Bombay High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chinnammal vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 21 April, 2011

24.Hence, considering the ratio laid down by the Honourable Apex Court and applying the same to the facts on hand, when it is not in dispute that the petitioners have fully participated in the enquiry and putforth their objections, this Court is of the view that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be countenanced and hence, the same is rejected as devoid of merits.
Madras High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 3 - M M Sundresh - Full Document

R. Saraswathi vs The Special Commissioner & on 15 March, 2012

13. With regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that service of notice in person is not contemplated under the Act and Rules, the learned single Judge, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, CMDA v. J.Sivaprakasam and others [(2011) 1 SCC 330] rejected the same holding that all other modes of notice are in substitution of personal notice and if personal notice is served, the appellants, who are legal heirs of erstwhile owner cannot have any complaint. Therefore, we are of the view that the said contention is only to be rejected.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next