Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.60 seconds)
Documents citing Shaziabad Sheromani Sahkari Avas ... vs State Of U.P. & Ors. Etc on 31 January, 1990

Mansa Ram vs Union Of India on 1 August, 1996

Similarly, in Ghaziabad Sheromani Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Others - Supra, the Apex Court considered the grievance of the members of the cooperative societies, who were in government service and passed direction regarding provision of a alternates plots to the members of the society, whose land has been acquired. This was done since the society had taken adequate steps before the acquisition of the land for the Development Authority had been notified. These cases are on a completely different footing. In the present suit, there is neither any claim nor has any relief been sought with regard to the alternate accommodation and the same is not an issue to be considered for the disposal for this application. I am of the view, that the plaintiffs have failed to make out a prima facie case. The balance of convenience is also against them as the land is acquired urgently for residential development scheme of village Jasola by the defendants. In this view of the matter, I.A.4812/93 is dismissed and the order passed on 27-6-1993 is vacated.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 2 - M Sarin - Full Document

Eros City Developers Private Ltd. vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 21 January, 2008

In that regard reliance may be placed on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad Sheromani Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. (supra) and the same has been followed by this Court in the case of National Fertilizers Employees Co-operative Housing Society Limited (supra). Therefore, we do not find any substance in the argument raised on behalf of the respondents. We are also unable to accept the request made by the learned Additional Advocate General that the amount deposited by the petitioner-company could be refunded.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 10 - T P Mann - Full Document

Shri Bhagwan And Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 14 February, 1991

(25) Our attention was then drawn to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad Sheromani Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. and another v. State of U.P. and others, . In that case, cooperative societies had already acquired land before the same was notified for acquisition fay the Ghaziabad Development Authority. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions and an appeal was filed to the Supreme Court. Without going into the legal contentions 'which had been raised, the Supreme Court held that the members of the cooperative societies should not be denied residential accommodation for which they had taken' effective steps before the acquisition for the Development Authority was notepad been raised, the Supreme Court held that the uncooperative societies should be provided with plots of land limited to an area of 80 sq. yards. It will be seen that the said decision' was confined to the facts of that particular case. No proposition of law was laid down to the effect that land which had been acquired by she cooperative societies should not. be. acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. What weighed, with the Supreme Court in' ordering release of the land in their favor was that effective steps had been taken by the cooperative society prior to the acquisition by the Development Authority. In the present case, no cooperative society is a petitioner before us. On the contrary, the land which is sought to be acquired will ultimately be used by the cooperative societies. In other words, the acquisition in question is also for the benefit of cooperative societies which arc to be accommodated in the sub-city of Dwarka.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 2 - B N Kirpal - Full Document

Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills ... vs Union Of India And Ors. on 9 July, 1990

(18) The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the object of acquiring the present land is for constructing some residential houses and the said object of acquisition stands duly fulfillled in the present case inasmuch as the staff quarters for housing the labourers of petitioner company already stand constructed. Thus. the land in question should not be allowed to be acquired and she has cited the case of Hukam Chand v. Union of India; Air 1988 S.C. 40 and Ghaziabad Sheromani Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd.& Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. .
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Meena Devi Jindal Medical Institute And ... vs Lt. Governor, Delhi Administration ... on 3 March, 2005

Some other judgments have also been cited by the learned Counsel representing the petitioner but it is no necessary to mention the same as in my view the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Shenomani Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. v. State of U.P. is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. It is proved on the record of the case that most of members of the petitioner-society are low paid employees. It is a bona fide case of setting up a colony for the members of the petitioner-society.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 87 - S Kumar - Full Document

Indira Nagar Residents Benefit Society ... vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. on 20 September, 1995

12. Reliance was also placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Sheromani Sahakari Avas Samiti Limited v. State of U.P. . That was a case wherein the Government servants formed a house building co-operative society and acquired certain house sites for the purpose of lay out and allotted sites to the members of the Society. The Supreme Court held that when the Government servants have formed a lay out for their purpose, the acquisition was not appropriate and it further held that the grievances advanced by the members through their Co-operative societies were genuine and they should not be denied residential accommodation for which they had taken effective steps before the acquisition for the Development Authority was notified. It may be pointed out that a house building cooperative society formed by the Government servants and acquiring the land for the purpose of lay out, will stand on a different footing than the lay out formed by a real estate owner, who is interested in minting money. In the instant case, the real estate owner, 9th respondent knowing fully well that the Government was going to acquire the land, wanted to extract money from the public, without disclosing the fact that the lands have been proposed to be acquired. Thus, the 9th respondent who is the main cause for all these cannot be held to have acted bona fide. Consequently the members of thee petitioner Society who claim through the 9th respondent, cannot also claim bona fides. All appear to have made an attempt to make money so that they can get good compensation. Therefore, the said decision cannot be applied to the facts of the present case.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

V. Devaraj, V. Sundararajan, V. ... vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Secretary ... on 26 March, 2003

13. Considering the validity of acquisition for the purpose for which the land was put into use, the Apex Court in Ghaziabad Sheromani Sakhari Avas Samiti Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others held that as the land measuring 20 acres were purchased by the Co-operative Society for construction of houses to the members, the Development Authority constituted by the State Government for the same purpose should not have been permitted to acquire the same to the prejudice of the petitioners therein.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

National Fertilizers Employees ... vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 24 July, 1998

7. Some other judgments have also been cited by the learned Counsel representating the petitioner but it is not necessary to mention the same as in my view the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Sheromani Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. v. State of U.P. is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. It is proved on the record of the case that most of members of the petitioner-society are low paid employees. It is a bona fide case of setting up a colony for the members of the petitioner-society. As mentioned above not only that the entire land measuring about 53 acres came to be purchased by the petitioner-society before notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued but with regard to 33 acres of land petitioner-society had been permitted to establish a colony for its members. It is further provided that remaining about 20 acres of land was purchased with a view to accommodate all the members of the society as also that unless the said piece of land was available to the petitioner-society, no meaningful colony could have been carved out. The facilities which are essentially required for the inhabitants of the colony could not be made if this piece of land measuring about 21 acre was to go out of the hands of the petitioner-society. Further, it is after all a case where petitioner is endeavouring to achieve the same object as is contemplated by the government in issuing notification under section 4 and declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. If the land of the petitioner-society is acquired, it would simply mean that members of petitioner-society are deprived of a house which shall then be made available to those who may be successful in draw of lots in the residential area that may be developed by the government or the Haryana Urban Development Authority.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

The Working Friends Cooperative House vs The State Of Punjab & Others on 24 April, 2012

In Ghaziabad Sheromani Sahkari Avas Samiti Limited case (supra), the land of the Cooperative Societies was excluded from the acquisition for the reason that the Societies have taken effective steps before notification for the acquisition. In the present case, the petitioner has purchased part of the land even after publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act and no step whatsoever has been taken by the petitioner for setting up of a residential colony as per the then existing statute.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - H Gupta - Full Document
1   2 Next