Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 102 (2.13 seconds)
Documents citing Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. & Anr vs Mathias Oram & Ors on 19 July, 2010

Gangadhar Karbhari Jadhav vs Union Of India Thr. Secretary Ministry ... on 27 March, 2023

[2020 (8) SCC 1257], in our view, the said judgment of the Supreme court in case of Mahnadi Coal Fields Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Mathias Oram and Ors. (supra) is thus, clearly distinguishable on the facts and would not assist the case of he Petitioner. In the facts of this case, the compensation had already been paid. The acquisition of right of user of the Petitioner's land were passed in or about 2000 to 2010.
Bombay High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pipeline Infrastructure Ltd (Formerly ... vs Gangadhar Karbhari Jadhav on 27 March, 2023

[2020 (8) SCC 1257], in our view, the said judgment of the Supreme court in case of Mahnadi Coal Fields Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Mathias Oram and Ors. (supra) is thus, clearly distinguishable on the facts and would not assist the case of he Petitioner. In the facts of this case, the compensation had already been paid. The acquisition of right of user of the Petitioner's land were passed in or about 2000 to 2010.
Bombay High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. . vs Mathias Oram . on 3 November, 2022

“10. … A blinkered vision of development, complete apathy towards those who are highly adversely affected by the development process and a cynical unconcern for the enforcement of the laws lead to a situation where the rights and benefits promised and guaranteed under the Constitution hardly ever reach the most marginalised citizens.” (Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. case [Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. Mathias Oram, (2010) 11 SCC 269 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 450 : JT (2010) 7 SC 352] , SCC p. 273, para 10) For people whose lives and livelihoods are intrinsically connected to the land, the economic and cultural shift to a market economy can be traumatic.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - S R Bhat - Full Document

G.Kesavan vs The Union Of India on 30 January, 2025

52. Whether the 2015 order issued under Section 113(1) of the Act would be construed as a notification issued under Section 105(3) of the 2013 Act has been answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahanadi 39/53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021 Coal Fields Ltd., and Ors. v. Mathias Oram and Ors., reported in AIR 2022 SC 5723. The relevant portion of the order reads thus :
Madras High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - R S Kumar - Full Document

State Of U.P. Through District ... vs Khempal & Others on 9 August, 2016

17. The fundamental right of a farmer to cultivate his land is a part of right to livelihood "Agricultural land is the foundation for a sense of security and freedom from fear. Assured possession is a lasting source for peace and prosperity." India being predominantly an agricultural society, there is a "strong linkage between the land and the person's status in the social system." "A blinkered vision of development, complete apathy towards those who are highly adversely affected by the development process and a cynical unconcern for the enforcement or the laws lead to a situation where the rights and benefits promised and guaranteed under the Constitution hardly ever reach the most marginalised citizens. For people whose lives and livelihoods are intrinsically connected to the land. the economic and cultural shift to a market economy can be traumatic." (Vide: Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. & Anr. v. Mathias Oram & Ors., (2010) 11 SCC 269; and Narmada Bachao Andolan v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., AIR 2011 SC 1989)
Allahabad High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - S P Kesarwani - Full Document

M/S Oswal Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., vs Ram Dularey on 28 November, 2016

33. I would like to add something more to justify imposition of costs upon the wealthy appellants for payment to the claimants - respondents (poor farmers) who were not only deprived of their means of livelihood (agriculture), their sense of economic security, peace, prosperity and social status, on account of compulsory acquisition of their lands for the rich appellants to set up a fertilizer factory which they sold after few years for Rs.1908 crores and yet created a difficult situation for the claimants respondents by dragging them in luxury litigation for more than twenty six years from the date of acquisition including about 17 years in this court, without realising that poor farmers cannot afford the exorbitant cost of litigation. This reminds the court the fear expressed by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the Chief architect of the Constitution of India, about our democracy as noted by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. and another (supra) which is also well reflected in the feelings and sufferings expressed by the claimants- respondents in their submissions as noted in para 10 above. The appellants have dragged the poor claimants - respondents in long luxury litigation for about 26 years and deprived them to receive just and fair compensation.
Allahabad High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - S P Kesarwani - Full Document

Ram Phal And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others on 25 March, 2019

38. I would like to add something more to justify imposition of costs upon the respondent-NOIDA for payment of compensation to the claimants - appellants (poor farmers) who were not only deprived of their means of livelihood (agriculture), their sense of economic security, peace, prosperity and social status, on account of compulsory acquisition of their lands but difficult situation has also been created by the respondents for the claimants appellants by dragging them in luxury litigation for more than twenty eight years from the date of acquisition including about 16 years in this court to get just and fair compensation, without realising that poor farmers cannot afford the exorbitant cost of litigation. This reminds the court the fear expressed by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the Chief architect of the Constitution of India, about our democracy as noted by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. and another (supra).
Allahabad High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 5 - S P Kesarwani - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next