Khazan Singh (Dead) By Lrs vs Union Of India on 24 January, 2002
In Khazan Singh v. Union if India , while dealing with the import of the provisions of Sections 18, 20 and 26 of the Act it was held as under:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.85 seconds)(Smt.) Smita Pandurang Dalvi, Of Bombay ... vs Ratnakar Dattatraya Patade, Of Bombay, ... on 26 February, 2002
44. It is no doubt true as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Kothamasu Kanakarathamma's case (supra), Mohammad Hasnuddin's case (supra) and in P.U.A.E.N.S.S. Ltd. v. A.V.P. and Anr. case (supra) that the reference court is under statutory duty to examine that as to whether all the three essential conditions for making proper and valid reference were existing before the Collector while making reference under Section 18 of the Act for determination to the court or not. If it is found that all the aforesaid three essential conditions were not existing despite thereof Collector has made reference, the court was bound to decline to answer the reference because of the simple reason that in such eventuality, the Collector has no jurisdiction to make reference under Section 18 of the Act, as the existence of those three essential conditions, are condition precedent for exercise of his jurisdiction for making reference under said section of the Act.
Bhavnagar University vs Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 3 December, 2002
In the said decision their Lordships of Privy Council have held that the Act does not appear to contemplate that where more than one person is interested in a parcel of land there should be more than one award relating thereto. Their Lordships do not by this mean that the whole of the land at any one time to be acquired under the Act must necessarily be dealt within one award: but only that any one piece of land (forming part of the whole) in which more than one person has an interest for which he can claim compensation, ought not to be made the subject of more than one award. In the aforesaid case a particular piece of land ad measuring an area of about 495 square yards had been dealt with by the Land Acquisition Officer in two documents and that particular parcel of land figured in both. Their Lordships however thought that the two documents (the later of which specifically referred to the earlier) must be read together as constituting one award in relation to that parcel of land by which officer awarded the compensation to be allowed for that land to the interested persons.
1