Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.22 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
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 vs Rajiv Jassi on 6 May, 2016
12. At this stage, learned Additional Advocate General pressed into
service judgment dated 24.2.2023 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in
Civil Appeal No. 1278 of 2023, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and
Ors v. Rajiv and others, to argue that the relief as sought in the writ
petition, cannot be allowed on the ground of delay and laches, but
having perused judgment supra, in its entirety, this court finds that it
never came to be held in the aforesaid judgment that the claim of the
land owner after an inordinate delay, cannot be considered, rather, in
the aforesaid case, claimants were not held entitled to the interest
under the Land Acquisition Act from the date of issuance of Notification
under S.4 till the filing of the writ petition. Though in the instant case,
Notification under S.4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued but the
::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2023 20:34:59 :::CIS
12
same was not taken to its logical end and as such, ruling if any given is
of no consequence, as far as case of facts of the present case are
concerned.
State Of Himachal Pradesh & Anr vs Umed Ram Sharma & Ors on 11 February, 1986
In case titled, State of Himachal Pradesh v. Umed Ram
rt
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,
cannot be sustained because such stand is violative of Article 300A of
the Constitution of India