Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 41 (1.10 seconds)
Documents citing New Reviera Co-Op. Housing Society & ... vs Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors. ... on 4 December, 1995

Narmada Bachao Andolan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through ... on 21 February, 2008

In New Reviera Cooperative Housing Society v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (supra) on which Mr. Prasad placed reliance, several flats of the New Reviera Cooperative Housing Society, Bombay were notified for acquisition for public purpose. A contention was raised that the acquisition was violative of Article 21 of the Constitution inasmuch as it deprived the owner of the flat the right to shelter, but the Supreme Court held that if this contention is accepted then no land can be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for any public purpose. In this case again, the Supreme Court was not deciding the effects of displacement of a large number of tribals and other persons on account of construction of dam on their right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution. In this case, moreover there was no policy of the Government for allotment of agricultural land to displaced persons from whom land was acquired for the purpose of the dam.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 2 - A K Patnaik - Full Document

Ravi Khullar And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. [Alongwith ... on 30 March, 2007

23. It then proceeded to consider the submission urged on behalf of the appellant that in any event it was entitled to the allotment of alternative land in lieu of the lands acquired. The High Court after noticing the Full Bench decision of the High Court in Ramanand v. Union of India AIR 1994 Delhi 29 and the judgment of this Court in New Reviera Cooperative Housing Society v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ors. observed that if there was a scheme promulgated by the State to provide alternative sites to persons whose lands had been acquired, the Court could give effect to the Scheme. However, it could not be argued as a matter of principle that in each and every case of acquisition the land owners must be given an alternative site because such a principle, if adopted, would result in the State being unable to acquire any land for public purpose. In the instant case the High Court dismissed the writ petition in view of the fact that there was nothing on record to indicate that any application was made to the competent authority for allotting an alternative site within a reasonable period.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 30 - B P Singh - Full Document

Valjibhai Shamjibhai Ghelani vs The State Of Gujarat Thr' Secretary And ... on 7 March, 2007

7. The last contention that the petitioner whose only source of livelihood is income derived from the lands acquired in the instant case, is not rehabilitated or offered alternative lands and, therefore, the acquisition proceedings should be quashed, is devoid of merits. It may be mentioned that this plea is not raised by the petitioner in the petition but is raised during the course of hearing of the petition. However, this point has been considered by the Supreme Court in the decisions rendered in (1) Chameli Singh v. State of U.P. ; (2) New Reviera Cooperative Housing Society Limited and Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ors. (1996) 2 SCC 731; (3) Bhatt Indravadan Nathalal v. State of Gujarat 2004 (2) GLH 224l and (4) State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Basantibai Mohanlal Khetan and Ors. and negatived.
Gujarat High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - J M Panchal - Full Document

Lallubhai Shamjibhai Ghelani vs The State Of Gujarat Thr' Secretary And ... on 7 March, 2007

7. The last contention that the petitioner whose only source of livelihood is income derived from the lands acquired in the instant case, is not rehabilitated or offered alternative lands and, therefore, the acquisition proceedings should be quashed, is devoid of merits. It may be mentioned that this plea is not raised by the petitioner in the petition but is raised during the course of hearing of the petition. However, this point has been considered by the Supreme Court in the decisions rendered in (1) Chameli Singh v. State of U.P. ; (2) New Reviera Cooperative Housing Society Limited and Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ors. (1996) 2 SCC 731; (3) Bhatt Indravadan Nathalal v. State of Gujarat 2004 (2) GLH 224l and (4) State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Basantibai Mohanlal Khetan and Ors. and negatived.
Gujarat High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - J M Panchal - Full Document

Mangal Park Co-Op. Housing Society vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 27 February, 1997

12. In the case of New Rivera Co-op. Hous. Society v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, , the land which was the subject-matter of acquisition was held by a co-operative housing society. In that case, the contention which is raised before us was also raised and it was further urged that on account of the said acquisition the members of the appellant co-operative housing society would become shelterless and it was also urged before the Apex Court that at least the Government be directed to provide for alternative site. Said contention has been negatived by the Apex Court by laying down the following principles:
Gujarat High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 1 - S D Pandit - Full Document

Paschimbanga Bhumijibi Krishak Samiti ... vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. [Alongwith ... on 26 July, 1996

Again in New Reviera Co-operative Housing Society and Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ors. reported in 1966(1 )SCC 731, the Supreme Court has held that the said power of eminent domain can be exercised even to make a person shelterless in order to serve a larger public purpose. It is not disputed that the object of the Amending Act. of 1981 and 1986 if upheld, would be for public purpose. The only question, therefore, is as to whether Just compensations is required to be paid or not.
Calcutta High Court Cites 143 - Cited by 21 - S B Sinha - Full Document

M.R. Gopalakrishna Reddy And Others vs Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams And ... on 17 April, 2001

In this context it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in New Raviera Co-op. Housing Society v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, 1995 (7) Scale 303, in which the Supreme Court held that compulsory acquisition of the land for public purpose does not violate Article 21 of the Constitution nor the right to livelihood or right to shelter or dignity of person. It is observed:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - B S Reddy - Full Document

Shanti Sports Club And Another vs Union Of India And Others on 27 August, 2001

We have given serious consideration to the aforesaid submission. The much needed housing project, which is required for large number of applicants, is one of the considerations for the impugned decision. The decision making authority had given primacy and preference to the housing project over the sports club. Such a consideration is implicit in the decision itself. It was not necessary to state the obvious. It is well settled that right to shelter is a fundamental right [see New Reviera Coop. Housing Society and another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others, ]. In view of this position, preference given to the housing project over the sports club cannot be frowned upon as the State is fulfillling the basic human need of shelter.
Delhi High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 6 - M Sharma - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next