Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.55 seconds)Section 18 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs Special Land Acquisition Officer, ... on 21 July, 1988
In view of the amended provision of Section 25 of the Act he is no longer under any obligation to support his conduct before the L.A.O. in not making a claim or in making a lesser claim, and
(2) in the light of the discussion on the ambit of Section 25 after its amendment, the contrary dicta in Kalburgi's case cannot be supported more so in the light of the Decision of the Supreme Court in Chimanlal's case and has necessarily to be treated as per incuriam and therefore dissented to and overruled.
Bhag Singh & Ors vs Union Territory Of Chandigarh, Through ... on 14 August, 1985
We have omitted the other factors as they are not necessary for the present purpose. Factor No. 3 quoted above clearly brings out the proposition advanced before us by Mr. Vijaya Shankar that the Court in a Reference under Section 18 will have to consider the case from the stage of the Reference on the basis of the material produced before the Court. These observations were read along with earlier observations made in Bhag Singh's case to point out that the claimants should not be restricted to the claim made by them before the Land Acquisition Officer and the restriction imposed by this Court in R.H.Kalburgi's case go beyond the scope of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
Section 7 in The Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Sharadchandra Chimanlal And Ors. vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 14 March, 1986
In SHARADCHANDRA CHIMANLAL AND ORS. v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS., this aspect was considered in the context of a claimant not having made any claim whatever before.the Land Acquisition Officer. The Bench of the Gujarat High Court held that in spite of the non-claim, the claimant was entitled to seek enhanced compensation. At page 59-the Bench observed thus: