Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.67 seconds)
Documents citing R.L. Aurora Ram Ditta Mal vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors. on 30 August, 1957

Motibhai Vithalbhai Patel And Anr. vs The State Of Gujarat And Anr. on 8 November, 1960

It may be pointed out that in this case the agreement contained the following clause: "that the public will have such right of access to and use of the land-works hereinbefore specified as may be necessary for the transaction of their business with the firm". The existence of this clause in the agreement with the Company was regarded by the Court of first instance and by the Appellate Court in the same case (R. L. Aurora v. State of Uttar Pradesh) reported in AIR 1958 All 872 as sufficient compliance with the requirement of Section 41(5). It is not possible to read this case as lending support to the present argument urged by counsel on behalf of the State.
Gujarat High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Sarju Prasad Sahu vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors. on 10 August, 1961

In R. L. Aurora v. State of U. P., AIR 1958 All 872, also the validity of Sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 17 was being questioned on the ground that the sub-sections conferred an arbitrary power on the State Government to determine when a state of urgency exists and thus to deprive person of his right under Section 5-A to object to the acquisition of his property. The contention was, however, rejected with, the observation.
Allahabad High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Lala Jagdish Prasad And Anr. vs Administrator, Municipal Board, ... on 26 August, 1960

In Suryapal Singh v. U. P. Government, AIR 1951 All 674, another Full Bench case, the Court gave recognition to this well-known exception to the rule of non-delegation of legislative powers. At page 697 the Court observed, "These considerations lead us to the further conclusion that if the power of delegation possessed by a Legislature is of a more limited character than we have stated earlier, there are nevertheless certain classes of legislation which a Legislature must have power to entrust to another authority. Such classes will include: .....
Allahabad High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 7 - S N Dwivedi - Full Document

Shyam Behari And Ors. vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 8 August, 1961

In R. L. Aurora v. State of U. P., AIR 1958 All 126 where land was acquired for a company' engaged in the manufacture and production of textile machines the agreement mentioned that the public could use the factory for doing business in connexion with the production of textile machines. This was held to be a substantial provision in the agreement regarding user by the public under Clause (5) of Section 41.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chaitram Verma And Ors. vs Land Acquisition Officer, Raipur And ... on 20 May, 1993

13. It was thereafter, submitted that the words "for a company "appearing in Sections 4 and 6 of the Act only cover cases where the acquisition is on behalf of the company and the title of the land to be acquired would vest in the company for which it is required. As noticed. earlier, though the words "for a company" were inserted in Section 4 of the Act by the Amendment Act No. 68 of 1984, these words existed in Section 6 even prior to it. In R.L. Aurora Ram Ditta Mal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1958 All 126, these words were read as meaning "for the benefit of the company". No authority has been cited by the learned counsel for the respondents to support the submission that words "for a company" mean "for vesting ownership of the acquired land in the company". The word "for" is used as a function or to indicate purpose or any intended destination or the object towards which the acquisition is directed. Dictionary meaning of the word "for" is "intended to", "belonging to" or "is used in connection with" or "suiting the purpose or need of. These meanings give a wide scope to the word "for" and hence words "for a company" would mean "for the purpose or need of a company". It is well established rule of interpretation that an otherwise clear and unambiguous language of a statute will not be interpreted restrictively only because its meaning does not suit a particular factual situtation. The literal grammatical meaning of the words "for a company" which includes "for the benefit of the company" is neither inconsistent with the purpose of the provision nor otherwise unjust or unfair so as to prompt this Court to make an effort to interprete it in a restricted manner. Under the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsellor the respondents that the acquisition "for a company" would cover only those cases where the land is intended to be transferred to the ownership of the beneficiary company. In the opinion of this Court, the words "for a company" would cover cases when acquisition is for the purpose of meeting any particular need of a company or for the benefit of a company. In the instant case, the land is required for construction of a railway siding which in turn, is required for transporting manufactured cement from the cement plant of the respondent No. 4. The acquisition is therefore for the benefit of the respondent Company. Entire cost of construction of railway siding as also the cost of acquisition will also be borne by the respondent No. 4 and no part of this cost would come from public exchequer. In a situation like this, the acquisition would be for the respondent No. 4 and not for a public purpose, as defined under Section 3(f) of the Act. Indeed, in the absence of any contribution to costs of acquisition by Respondent No. 3, the acquisition, even before the amendment of 1984, would not be for a public purpose.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1