Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.57 seconds)Section 4 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui Etc, Mohd. Aslam, ... vs Union Of India And Others on 24 October, 1994
The contention in respect of the policy of leaving out from the acquisition built up area has also been repelled in another Division Bench decision of this Court in Shri Bhagwan and Another Vs. Union of India and others, 1991 (2) Delhi Lawyer 59 (DB).
M/S. Attar Singh And Brothers vs Delhi Development Authority on 2 February, 1996
"The contentions that there is any policy to regularise unauthorised colonies or there is a policy decision not to acquire built up area, are concluded against the petitioner by a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Attar Singh v. D.D.A. (C.W. 3110 of 1991) decided on 10th August, 1992.
State Of U.P. Etc vs Smt. Pista Devi & Ors on 12 September, 1986
The above argument is not available to the learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the above said judgments of the Supreme Court in State of U.P.Vs. Pista Devi (supra), Aflatoon and others etc.Vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi and others, (1975) 2 S 285, and Deepak Pahwa (supra). In any event the respondent in the counter-affidavit has justified the application of section 17(1) read with section 17(4) of the Act.
Prem Chand Sharma & Company vs Delhi Development Authority & Another on 9 January, 1998
In M/s. Prem Chand Ramesh Chand Vs. Delhi Development Authority and another, 66 (1977) Delhi Law Times 482 (DB), a Division Bench of this Court relying on Attar Singh Vs. D.D.A. (C.W.P. No. 3110 of 1991, decided on August 10, 1992); Shri Bhagwan and another v. Union of India and others, 1991 (2) Delhi Lawyer 59 (DB), and Roshanara Begum Vs. Union of India, , held as follows :-
Rajasthan Housing Board And Ors. Etc. ... vs Kishan And Ors. Etc. Etc on 27 January, 1993
Again in Rajasthan Housing Board and others Vs. Shri Kishan and others, , the Apex Court reiterated that the opinion of urgency formed by the appropriate authority under section 17(4) is subjective one and so long as there is material upon which it could have formed the said opinion fairly, the Court will be loathe to interfere. In such matters it would also not examine the material as an appellate authority who could take the decision with regard to the determination of the question relating to existence of urgency.
Deepak Pahwa Etc vs Lt. Governer Of Delhi And Ors on 22 August, 1984
In Chameli Singh's case (supra) the Supreme Court following the decision of the earlier three judge Bench in Deepak Pahwa's case (supra) held that delay by the officials in finalising the acquisition proceedings can not be held to be a ground to set at naught the invocation of the urgency clause. In this regard the Supreme Court observed as follows :-