Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 205 (1.98 seconds)
Documents citing Banda Development Authy, Banda vs Moti Lal Agarwal & Ors on 26 April, 2011

Dr A K Merchant vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 April, 2026

28. If the appellant's case is examined in the light of the propositions culled out in Banda Development Authority v. Moti Lal Agarwal [(2011) 5 SCC 394 : (2011) 2 SCC (Civ) 747] we have no hesitation to hold that possession of the acquired land had not been taken from the appellant on 28-11-2008 i.e. the day on which the award was declared by the Land Acquisition Collector because crops were standing on several parcels of land including the appellant's land and possession thereof could not have been taken without giving notice to the landowners. That apart, it was humanly impossible to give notice to a large number of persons on the same day and take actual possession of the land comprised in various survey numbers (total measuring 214 acres 5 kanals and 2 marlas)."
Karnataka High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

E.Ramachandran vs The Secretary To Government on 6 November, 2014

28.If the appellant's case is examined in the light of the propositions culled out in Banda Development Authority V. Moti Lal Agarwal we have no hesitation to hold that possession of the acquired land had not been taken from the appellant on 28.11.2008 i.e., the day on which the award was declared by the Land Acquisition Collector because crops were standing on several parcels of land including the appellant's land and possession thereof could not have been taken without giving notice to the landowners. That apart, it was humanly impossible to give notice to a large number of persons on the same day and take actual possession of the land comprised in various survey numbers (total measuring 214 acres 5 kanals and 2 marlas).
Madras High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - C S Karnan - Full Document

Gajraj And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others on 21 October, 2011

"20 If the present case is examined in the light of the facts which have been brought on record and the principles laid down in the judgment in Banda Development Authoritys case it is not possible to sustain the finding and conclusion recorded by the High Court that the acquired land had vested in the State Government because the actual and physical possession of the acquired land always remained with the Appellants and no evidence has been produced by the Respondents to show that possession was taken by preparing a panchnama in the presence of independent witnesses and their signatures were obtained on the panchnama."
Allahabad High Court Cites 296 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

B.Mallika vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 9 December, 2014

28.If the appellant's case is examined in the light of the propositions culled out in Banda Development Authority V. Moti Lal Agarwal we have no hesitation to hold that possession of the acquired land had not been taken from the appellant on 28.11.2008 i.e., the day on which the award was declared by the Land Acquisition Collector because crops were standing on several parcels of land including the appellant's land and possession thereof could not have been taken without giving notice to the landowners. That apart, it was humanly impossible to give notice to a large number of persons on the same day and take actual possession of the land comprised in various survey numbers (total measuring 214 acres 5 kanals and 2 marlas).
Madras High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 1 - C S Karnan - Full Document

Ashok Kumar Data vs State Of Raj And Ors on 28 May, 2012

Merely by the fact that declaration was issued under Section 6 of the Act, it cannot be held that possession was not taken in 1992. Since legality was not raised in first round of litigation, it is not open to us to hold that possession was illegally taken. We are of the considered opinion that once possession has been taken, it was not permissible to the petitioners to seek de-acquisition of the land. Decision of Banda Development Authority (supra) which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant has been taken into consideration by the Apex Court in Raghbir Singh Sehrawat (supra).
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - A Mishra - Full Document

Raghbir Singh Sehrawat vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 23 November, 2011

19. If the appellant's case is examined in the light of the propositions culled out in Banda Development Authority, Banda v. Moti Lal Agarwal and others, we have no hesitation to hold that possession of the acquired land had not been taken from the appellant on 28.11.2008, i.e. the day on which the award was declared by the Land Acquisition Collector because crops were standing on several parcels of land including the appellant's land and possession thereof could not have been taken without giving notice to the landowners. That apart, it was humanly impossible to give notice to large number of persons on the same day and take actual possession of land comprised in various survey numbers (total measuring 214 Acres 5 Kanals and 2 Marlas).
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 429 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

G.Thomas Devanandam vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 20 October, 2014

28.If the appellant's case is examined in the light of the propositions culled out in Banda Development Authority V. Moti Lal Agarwal we have no hesitation to hold that possession of the acquired land had not been taken from the appellant on 28.11.2008 i.e., the day on which the award was declared by the Land Acquisition Collector because crops were standing on several parcels of land including the appellant's land and possession thereof could not have been taken without giving notice to the landowners. That apart, it was humanly impossible to give notice to a large number of persons on the same day and take actual possession of the land comprised in various survey numbers (total measuring 214 acres 5 kanals and 2 marlas).
Madras High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 1 - C S Karnan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next