Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.63 seconds)Sachidananda Pandey vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 11 February, 1987
In support of this contention, the learned Advocate for the appellants relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Shri Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1987 SC 1109. In that case, the Supreme Court hs observed that if the Government is alive to the various considerations requiring thought and deliberation and has arrived at a conscious decision after taking them into account, it may not be for the Court to intervene in the absence of mala fides. There is no material produced by the appellants in this case to show that the Government was acting mala fide. If as a result of acute shortage of land within the city, nearby agricultural land situated in me green-belt is acquired by the Government, such an action cannot be regarded as mala fide action. It is also not possible to hold that acquisition of such a small piece of land will lead to deterioration in environment. For all these reasons, the contention raised on behalf of the appellants that as the land is now included in the green-belt the purpose of acquisition will not be served, cannot be accepted.
M/S. Ramchand Jagadish Chand vs Union Of India And Others on 8 August, 1961
11. The third point raised before us was that there was unreasonable delay in publishing the final notification. Learned Advocate for the appellants drew our attention to the fact that the preliminary notification was issued on 1-7-1982 and the final notification was issued on 5-2-1987 i.e., after more than four years. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramchand v. Union of India, it was contended that even where no time limit is prescribed for exercise of power, it has to be exercised within a reasonable time. As stated earlier, this point was not raised in the petition. With the result, we do not find any explanation as to why final notification could not be issued earlier than 5-2-1987. But the report shows that the notice under Section 3(2) could be served upon the appellants on 19-6-1984. The objecttion filed by the appellants was required to be considered and thereafter other formalities had to be gone into. Tt is also pointed out by the learned Government Advocate that after completion of the enquiry and after submission of the report by the Land Acquisition Officer, it was brought to the notice of the Government in the first half of 1986 that all the persons for whose benefit the land was sought to be acquired were not entitled to the allotment of land under the Act. Therefore, the Government made enquiries and found that only 46 persons were eligible for such allotment. That became clear from the report made in that behalf and submitted to the Government in November, 1986. On that basis, the requirement of land was re-considered and it was found that only 3 acres of land would be required and no more. The Government, therefore decided to drop from acquisition Sy. No. 31/1B and issued a notification to that effect on 16-12-1986. After completing all the formalities, the final notification to acquire the appellants' land was issued on 5-2-1987. Thus considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the explanation which is now offered by the Government, it is not possible to say that there was unreasonable delay in issuing the final notification.
Shanakarappa Veerabasappa Bannihatti vs The Deputy Commissioner Dharwad ... on 7 September, 1993
12. It may be stated that the learned Government Advocate relied upon the decision of this Court in S. V. Bannihatti v. Deputy Commissioner, 1993 (4) Kar 2780 (sic) in support of his contention that Section 11A has no application in the State of Karnataka in view of the State amendment and the provisions of the_Karnataka_Acquisition of Lands for Grant of House Sites Act, 1971.
Section 3 in Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [Entire Act]
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964
The Land Acquisition Officer, ... vs Mohd. Amri Khan & Ors. Etc. Etc on 30 September, 1985
The decision of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer v. Mohd. Amri Khan, wherein the same view has
been taken, was also relied upon. Now the principle that where a mode of performing a duty is laid down by law, it must be performed in that mode or not at all, is held to be subservient to the basic principle that Courts must endeavour to ascertain the legislative intent and purpose, and then adopt a rule of construction which effectuates rather than one that may defeat them.
Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961
1