Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 685 (1.12 seconds)
Documents citing Municipal Council, Ahmednagar And Anr vs Shah Hyder Beig And Ors on 8 December, 1999

Tmt.Dhanalakshmi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 August, 2013

9.For the sake of convenience, let me take up the objection regarding the maintainability of this writ petition at first. It is the contention of the respondents that this writ petition which was filed in the year 2006 long after passing of the award in the year 1993, is not at all maintainable, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig, case (cited supra). In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that long after the award had been passed in the land acquisition proceedings and compensation had been made over to the requiring authority, a writ petition challenging the notices issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act was not maintainable. Referring to the said judgment, the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that in this case, though the award was passed on 18.06.1993, the present writ petition came to be filed only on 02.01.2006.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

E.Velusami vs The Special Tahsildar (L.A) on 5 November, 2008

3...It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that no writ petition should be entertained after the award under the Land Acquisition Act has been passed  vide Tej Kaur and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2003 (4) SCC 485; Municipal Council, Ahmed Nagar vs. Shah Hyder Beig, AIR 2000 SC 671; Executive Engineer, Jal Nigam Central Stores Division, Uttar Pradesh vs. Suresh Nand Jayal, 1997 (9) SCC 224; State of Tamil Nadu vs. L.Krishnan and others, 1996 (1) SCC 250. Following the aforesaid decision, we are of the opinion that the writ petition itself were not maintainable and they should have been dismissed on this ground itself. Hence, the writ appeals are dismissed..."
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - S Tamilvanan - Full Document

A.Nagarajan vs The Secretary To Government on 21 December, 2012

18. To the similar effect is the judgment of this Court in Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig5 wherein this Court, following the decision of this Court in C. Padma v. Dy. Secy. to the Govt. of T.N.6 held: (Shah Hyder case3, SCC p. 55, para 17) 17. In any event, after the award is passed no writ petition can be filed challenging the acquisition notice or against any proceeding thereunder.
Madras High Court Cites 70 - Cited by 0 - V Dhanapalan - Full Document

State vs Kapilaben on 26 April, 2011

44. While deciding the question of delay and laches in preferring the petition under Article 226, Supreme Court in the case of The Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v Shah Hyder Beig reported in JT 1999 (10) SC 336 held that the equitable doctrine, namely, `delay defects equity' has its fullest application in the matter of grant of relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The discretionary relief can be had provided one has not by his act or conduct given a go-bye to his rights. Equity favours a vigilant rather than an indolent litigant and this being the basic tenet of law.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pralhad Lokram Dodeja & Ors. vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors. on 9 April, 2001

It was submitted by Mr. Soni that it was a case of continuing wrong, but as can be seen from para 8 of the Apex Court judgment in Municipal Council Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig (supra) that plea was turned down. In fact in that matter, the S.L.P. had been entertained and thereby the writ petition was dismissed on the short ground of delay itself.
Bombay High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 2 - H L Gokhale - Full Document

M. Sowbhagyamma (Died) And Ors. vs Land Acquisition Officer on 24 October, 2003

24. Article 300-A of the Constitution of India mandates that no person can be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The Land Acquisition Officer having acted in flagrant violation of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and having deprived the petitioners of their property without authority of law, cannot be allowed to contend that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches, and more so when they have acted with inordinate delay. Further, though the present writ petition was filed in the year 1994, no award had been passed, and it is only after repeated requests of adjournments that the Land Acquisition Officer passed the award on 17-9-2003. Therefore, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Municipal Council Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig has no application to the facts of the present case.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 18 - Cited by 2 - N V Ramana - Full Document

Mrs.Divya J.Dolia vs The Secretary on 13 October, 2008

18. To the similar effect is the judgement of this Court in Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig (2000) 2 SCC 48, wherein this Court, following the decision of this Court in C. Padma v. Dy. Secy. to the Govt. of T.N. (1997) 2 SCC 627 held: (Shah Hyder case, SCC p.55, para 17) "17. In any event, after the award is passed no writ petition can be filed challenging the acquisition notice or against any proceeding thereunder.
Madras High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next