Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.34 seconds)Section 6 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Miss. Asiya Mariyan D/O. Late. ... vs The Secretary To Government Of Tamil ... on 28 July, 2000
" 5.This Court, in Muthusamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1993 (1) MLJ 217); Devaraj vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2003 (4) CTC 134); Asiya Mariyan vs. Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu (2000 (4) CTC 125); and in series of other decisions, h held that Notice/Notification issued in the name of the dead person and the proceedings with respect to the said lands cannot sustained. By applying the said principle, we accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant and quash the Notification issued under Section 4(1), dated 14.6.1995. Consequent, the writ appeal is allowed. "
Muthusamy & Anr vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 December, 2003
" 5.This Court, in Muthusamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1993 (1) MLJ 217); Devaraj vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2003 (4) CTC 134); Asiya Mariyan vs. Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu (2000 (4) CTC 125); and in series of other decisions, h held that Notice/Notification issued in the name of the dead person and the proceedings with respect to the said lands cannot sustained. By applying the said principle, we accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant and quash the Notification issued under Section 4(1), dated 14.6.1995. Consequent, the writ appeal is allowed. "
K. Devaraj vs The Secretary To Government Education ... on 21 January, 2006
" 5.This Court, in Muthusamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1993 (1) MLJ 217); Devaraj vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2003 (4) CTC 134); Asiya Mariyan vs. Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu (2000 (4) CTC 125); and in series of other decisions, h held that Notice/Notification issued in the name of the dead person and the proceedings with respect to the said lands cannot sustained. By applying the said principle, we accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant and quash the Notification issued under Section 4(1), dated 14.6.1995. Consequent, the writ appeal is allowed. "
West Bengal Housing Board Etc vs Brijendra Prasad Gupta & Ors. Etc on 9 July, 1997
16. It is true, as laid down by the Supreme Court that when the factum of death of the person was not recorded in the revenue records or the same was not informed to the authorities under the Land Acquisition Act, it cannot be expected to make roving enquiry about the ownership of the property, but on the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is seen that the factum of death of the original owner has been informed by the daughter and in spite of the same the respondents have not taken any steps to rectify the mistake. In those circumstances, the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in 2006 (3) MLJ 389 (cited supra) will squarely apply to the facts of the case.
Section 13 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Savithiriammal vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 June, 2006
" 10. A Division Bench of this Court considered, in the case of SAVITHIRIAMMAL vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (2006 (3) MLJ 389), the validity of a notification issued in the name of a dead person and held that "the notification issued in the name of a dead person is a nullity and the proceedings cannot be sustained based on the said notification". But in para-3 of the said judgement, the learned Judges recorded a finding that the factum of death of the original owner was brought to the notice of the authorities even during the enquiry under Section 5-A and that despite the same, the authorities did not carry out necessary changes in the Section 6 declaration also. In view of such a finding, the Bench quashed the entire proceedings and that too at the instance of the legal heir of the deceased owner. But in the case on hand, the property has changed several hands and the appellants purchased the plots much after the award enquiry was over. It is not the case of the appellants that anyone ever brought to the notice of the acquiring authorities, the fact that the original owner was dead. Under such circumstances it is difficult to comprehend as to how the authorities can be expected to know that the original owner was dead. We are entirely in agreement with the views expressed by the learned Judges in the aforesaid cases, especially in the light of their finding in those cases that the acquiring authorities had knowledge of the death of the owner of the lands.