Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.69 seconds)Section 6 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Ashok Kumar & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 23 January, 2007
On the basis of the judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of
Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana (2007) 3 SCC 470 for the purposes of
period of one year it would not be deemed that the stay order was operative.
Therefore, if the notification issued on 10.6.2009 under Section 4 read with
Section 17 of the Act is permitted to remain intact then it leads to precarious
results. On the one hand the petitioners would not be able to claim the price
of the land prevailing on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the
Act which may be issued as a consequence of quashing the impugned
notifications and their land price would be pegged down and they would
CWP No. 17663 of 2009 6
get the price of their land as per the rate on 10.6.2009. Moreover, in earlier
cases it has been seen that the respondent-State has not been able to act
efficiently so as to abide by the dead-line of one year. Therefore, we are not
impressed with the submission made by the learned State Counsel.
State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors vs Radhey Shyam Nigam & Ors. Etc. Etc on 11 January, 1989
Similar view has been taken in the case of Radhey Sham Nigam's case
(supra). The aforesaid question has been clearly raised in para 5 and the
same has been answered in para 14 of the judgement which reads thus:
Section 7 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Shri Mohan Singh & Ors Etc vs International Airport Authority ... on 7 November, 1996
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the
considered view that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner merits acceptance. It is well settled principle of law that there
must be a gap of atleast a day between publication of notification under
Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act. A similar issue
arose before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Singh v.
International Airport Authority of India (1997) 9 SCC 132. The view of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court is discernible from the reading of para 13 of the
judgement which is as under:
Punita Chaudhary And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 8 December, 2008
The aforesaid view has been followed by a Division Bench of this
Court of which one of us (M.M.Kumar, J. is a member) in the case of Punita
Chaudhary and others v. State of Haryana and others 2009(2) RCR (C) 167.
1