Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.30 seconds)Section 6 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Lila Ram Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 19 August, 1975
In , Lila Ram v. Union of India a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of land measuring about 3000 acres mentioned that it was required "for the execution of the
Interim General plan for the Greater Delhi". No objection was taken before the authorities concerned that the public purpose was not specified. It was observed by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court that the lands covered by the notification being a huge area it might practically be difficult to specify the particular public purpose for which each and every item of land comprised in that area was needed. The acquisition proceeding was held valid. The decision in was followed. It was also held that the appellant having not raised any objection before the authorities concerned that they could not file effective objection against the proposed acquisition because of the public purpose mentioned in the notification being not specific could not b9 allowed to agitate the said point.
Ratilal Shakarabhai And Ors. vs The State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 11 March, 1970
11. The contention that due to the non-disclosure of the specific purpose to which the land-in-dispute would be put to appellants could not raise the plea of injurious affection of the lands left out of acquisition and as such they could not claim compensation for such injurious affection is not sustainable for the simple reason that such a claim regarding the compensation on the ground of injurious affection of the remaining lands left out of acquisition as provided in Clause 4 of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act is a matter which can be raised after receipt of the notice under Section 9 of the said Act and not be-fore that. In this case that stage has not reached when the Civil Rule was issued. Moreover, we have already held that the public purpose as mentioned in the notification under Section 4 and in the declaration under Section 6 is not at all vague and indefinite. This submission is, therefore, untenable. It may be mentioned in this connection that the application of the declaration under Section 6 is a conclusive evidence as to the public purpose for which the land is needed and the same cannot be challenged on the ground that the public purpose mentioned was not specific but vague. Reference may be made in this connection to the decision Ratilal Shankarabhai v. State of Gujarat where it has been observed that after a declaration has been published under Section 6 the Court cannot go into the question whether the need was genuine or not unless it is satisfied that the action taken by the Government was a fraudulent one. The collusiveness in Section 6(3) must necessarily attach not merely to a 'need' but also to the question whether the purpose was a public purpose.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 5 in Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
The State Of Bombay vs Bhanji Munji And Another.October 12, ... on 21 October, 1954
9. It has been strenuously contended on behalf of the appellants that the public purpose as mentioned in the notification under Section 4 is vague as the specific purpose for which the land-in-question is required has not been stated
and the petitioners have not been given inspection of the Master Plan and the scheme-in-question and as such they could not effectively object against the proposed acquisition as required under Section 5A of the said Act. It is evident from the notification under Section 4 annexed as annexure A to the petition that the public purpose mentioned therein in Mass Rapid Transit system and other connected works relating to the said system from Dum Dum to Tollygunge in the city of Calcutta. It is also evident from the said notification that a large area of land measuring more or less 0.754 hectare and involving a large number of premises had been notified for acquisition. In the declaration that has been made under Section 6 of the said Act it has been specifically mentioned that the disputed land is needed for the public purpose namely for construction of Mass Rapid Transit system and other connected works relating to the said system from Dum Dum to Tollygunge in the city of Calcutta. The work of construction of Mass Rapid Transit system and other connected works relating to the said system are undoubtedly a public purpose inasmuch as the public will be benefited by the said work. It has been observed in , State of Bombay v. Bhanji Munji that it is not necessary to set out the purpose of the requisition in the order under Sections 5(1) and 6(4) of Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948. The desirability of such a course is obvious because when it is not done proof of the purpose must be given in other ways. But in itself an omission to set out the purpose in the order is not fatal so long as the facts are established to the satisfaction of the Court in some other way.