Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.19 seconds)Smt. Suram Ramakka vs The Dist. Collector, Karimnagar And ... on 6 April, 1993
3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that since petitioners are not well versed in worldly affairs though they made a oral protest they did not write 'under protest' in the acquainttance, while receiving the amount of compensation paid to them by the respondent and in any event since they filed petitions for reference within the period of limitation prescribed their prayer for reference cannot be rejected in view of the ratio in Smt. Suram Ramakka v. The Dist.
Wardington Lyngdoh & Ors vs The Collector, Mawkyrwat on 17 April, 1995
5. The facts in Wardington Lyngdoh case (supra) relied on by the learned Assistant Government Pleader are entirely different from the facts of this case, because in that case the owners of the acquired land i.e., appellants before Supreme Court, received the amount of compensation awarded by the land acquisition officer under an agreement which is marked as Ex.B. Referring to the said Ex.B the Apex Court observed as follows in Para 6 of its judgment.
Mohammad Hasnuddin vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 November, 1978
6. While considering the meaning of the word 'required' used in Section 18 of the Act, a three Judge Bench of the apex Court in Mohammed Hasnuddin v. The State of Maharashtra , held as follows in Para 24 of its judgment:
Ajit Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 16 September, 1999
7. As per the ratio in Ajit Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. , even after receiving the compensation granted by the land acquisition officer, the claimants, by making a written application within the time prescribed can seek a reference to the civil Court because the apex Court in that decision observed as follows:
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Kotipalli Chitti vs Special Deputy Collector, Land ... on 24 January, 1997
1