Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 34 (0.24 seconds)Section 4 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Aflatoon And Others vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi & Others on 23 August, 1974
22. Both these issues have been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Bhajan Ram Girdhari Lal & Sons v. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 1067/1997 decided on 10-11-97, and after placing reliance on various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court including Hari Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1984 SC 1020; Aflatoon (supra).
State Of Bombay vs Chatrabhuj Nenshi on 22 March, 1965
6. It is a settled proposition of law that notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is a condition precedent to the exercise of any further power under the Act. The process of acquisition starts with the notification under Section 4(1) of the act and, thus, the notification under Section 4(1) is a sine qua non. Thus, where there is no notification under Section 4, the machinery provided by the Act for any further action obviously cannot proceed. (Vide Babu Barkya Thakur v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 1203; Narendrajeet Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1971 SC 306 : (1970 All LJ 70); Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor, Delhi, AIR 1974 SC 2077; State of Bombay v. Chaturbhuj Nenshi, AIR 1966 Guj 185 and Smt. Angira Devi Gupta v. Land Acquisition Collector, AIR 1986 Del 40.
Angira Devi Gupta vs The Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi on 15 April, 1985
6. It is a settled proposition of law that notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is a condition precedent to the exercise of any further power under the Act. The process of acquisition starts with the notification under Section 4(1) of the act and, thus, the notification under Section 4(1) is a sine qua non. Thus, where there is no notification under Section 4, the machinery provided by the Act for any further action obviously cannot proceed. (Vide Babu Barkya Thakur v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 1203; Narendrajeet Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1971 SC 306 : (1970 All LJ 70); Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor, Delhi, AIR 1974 SC 2077; State of Bombay v. Chaturbhuj Nenshi, AIR 1966 Guj 185 and Smt. Angira Devi Gupta v. Land Acquisition Collector, AIR 1986 Del 40.
Mahendra Lal Jaini vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others on 7 November, 1962
In the aforesaid judgment the acquisition had been upheld on ihe basis of the irregularities, however, it cannot be considered as a precedent for the reason that the Supreme Court referred to its earlier judgment in Raja Rain Jaiswal (supra) but did not consider the Constitution Bench judgment in Mahendra Lal Jaini (supra) (vide State of U.P. v. Ramchandra Trivedi, AIR 1976 SC 2547 : (1976 Lab IC 1647), Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd., 1985 (4) SCC 369 : (AIR 1986 SC 806) and General Manager, Telecom v. S. Sriniwasan Rao. 1997 (9) JT (SC) 234.
The Collector (Distt. Magistrate) ... vs Raja Ram Jaiswal Etc on 29 April, 1985
In the aforesaid judgment the acquisition had been upheld on ihe basis of the irregularities, however, it cannot be considered as a precedent for the reason that the Supreme Court referred to its earlier judgment in Raja Rain Jaiswal (supra) but did not consider the Constitution Bench judgment in Mahendra Lal Jaini (supra) (vide State of U.P. v. Ramchandra Trivedi, AIR 1976 SC 2547 : (1976 Lab IC 1647), Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd., 1985 (4) SCC 369 : (AIR 1986 SC 806) and General Manager, Telecom v. S. Sriniwasan Rao. 1997 (9) JT (SC) 234.
M/S. Pankaj Jain Agencies vs Union Of India And Other on 14 July, 1994
10. Thus, it was categorically held in Raja Ram Jaiswal that unless a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is published in the Official Gazette, nothing further can be done. This view further stands fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pankaj Jain Agencies v. Union of India, 1994 (5) SCC 198 : (1994 AIR SCW 4552) and I.T.C. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, 1996 (5) SCC 538.
I.T.C. Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise, Bombay on 26 August, 1996
10. Thus, it was categorically held in Raja Ram Jaiswal that unless a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is published in the Official Gazette, nothing further can be done. This view further stands fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pankaj Jain Agencies v. Union of India, 1994 (5) SCC 198 : (1994 AIR SCW 4552) and I.T.C. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, 1996 (5) SCC 538.
Venkataswamappa vs The Special Deputy Commissioner ... on 28 August, 1996
11. The effect of a publication in the local newspapers of the substance of Section 4(1) notification prior to its publication in the Official Gazette came for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Venkataswamappa v. Special Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), AIR 1997 SC 503 and the Court held that publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in the
Official Gazette is the actual publication. However, if it has been published in the local newspapers prior to its publication in the Official Gazette, it would amount to an irregularity and would not vitiate the acquisition proceedings. The Court observed as under (at page 505) :--