Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.29 seconds)The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Section 3 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Kailas Chandra Mitra vs Secretary Of State For India In Council on 22 June, 1910
This view had, however, not been accepted by this Court and the Lahore High Court, and the Privy Council in -- 'Kailash Chandra v. Secy. of State, AIR, 1940 PC 132 (G), has rejected the view of the Allahabad Court that if land is not being put to any productive use at all on the relevant date, it may be acquired for nothing.
Section 11 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Secy. Of State vs Shaikh Zahid Husain on 6 December, 1935
6. The learned counsel for the respondents however, relied on two decisions of the Allahabad Court dealing with the same Act, which in turn purported to be based on certain decisions of the Privy Council. The first of the Allahabad cases is -- 'Secretary of State v. Zahid Husain', AIR 1936 All 460 (A), decided by Harries and Rachhpal Singh JJ. In that case the Government wished to appeal against an award of the Allahabad Tribunal.
Application and Appeals Rules
United Provinces Government vs Azhar Ali And Anr. on 14 February, 1945
7. The second case is -- 'United Provinces Government v. Azhar Ali', AIR 1945 All 187 (FB) (B), which is a derision by three Judges Mulla, Yorke and Bennett JJ. Here again the Government wished to appeal against an award by the Cawnpore Tribunal and an application was filed by the Government Pleader which this time did contain some grounds, but again, instead of praying that a certificate be granted that the case was a fit one for appeal, prayed for leave to appeal. The order of the President On this application read:
Radhakrishna Ayyar vs Swaminatha Ayyar on 3 December, 1920
10. Finally there is a case -- "Radhakrishna
Aiyar v. Swaminatha Aiyar', AIR 1921 PC 25 (E). The following passage occurs in the judgment of their Lordships which was delivered by Lord Buck-master: