Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.40 seconds)Article 300 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 4 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. Thr.Poa Holder vs M.I.D.C. & Ors on 2 November, 2012
of
In Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. v. M.I.D.C. & Ors., this Court while
dealing with a similar fact situation, held as follows :
Article 31 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
State Of Haryana vs Mukesh Kumar & Ors on 30 September, 2011
12.10. This Court in State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar held
that the right to property is now considered to be not only a
constitutional or statutory right, but also a human right. Human
rights have been considered in the realm of individual rights
such as right to shelter, livelihood, health, employment, etc.
Human rights have gained a multifaceted dimension."
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Himachal Pradesh & Anr vs Umed Ram Sharma & Ors on 11 February, 1986
In case titled, State of Himachal Pradesh v. Umed Ram
Sharma (1986) 2 SCC 68, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that entire
State of Himachal Pradesh is a hilly area and without workable roads,
no communication is possible; every person is entitled to life as
enjoined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India; every person has
right under Article 19 (1) (b) of the Constitution of India to move freely,
throughout the territory of India; for the residents of hilly areas, access
to road is access to life itself. Stand taken by the respondents that
there was a policy for providing roads on demand of residents as a
favour to them on conditions that they would not claim compensation,
::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2023 20:35:04 :::CIS
12
cannot be sustained because such stand is violative of Article 300A of
the Constitution of India
State Of Maharashtra vs Digambar on 12 May, 1995
State of Himachal Pradesh, CWP No. 1966 of 2010, otherwise the
appropriate remedy for the writ petitioner is to approach civil court by
of
filing a civil suit and not by way of Civil Writ Petition. She further
pressed into service judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in State
rt
of Maharashtra v. Digamber¸(1995) 4 SCC 683 to argue that that the
claim being highly stale, deserves outright rejection. Learned Additional
Advocate General further submitted that no compensation otherwise
could be claimed for tthe road constructed under Pradhan Mantri Gram
Sadak Yojana (PMGSY).