Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.30 seconds)
Chhotu Ram S/O Pratap vs Jaipur Development Authority on 10 May, 2019 cites

Rajendra Kumar vs Kalyan (D) By Lrs on 2 August, 2000

31. The requirement of notice under Sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 10 is mandatory and the word "may" used in both the Sub-sections has to be construed as "shall" because a court (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 12:34:10 AM) (31 of 32) [CW-26894/2018] charged with the task of enforcing the statute needs to decide the consequences that the legislature intended to follow from failure to implement the requirement. Effect of non-issue of notice under Sub-section (5) or Sub-section (6) of Section 11 is that it might result in the landholder being dispossessed without notice, therefore, the word "may" has to be read as "shall". To enter upon taking forcible possession, the procedures relevant have to be followed [vide Rajendra Kumar v. Kalyan] supra. Whereas in the case at hand these mandatory procedures were not followed and forcible physical possession, if any, for the first time, was taken only on 2nd March, 2015.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 91 - U C Banerjee - Full Document
1