Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.29 seconds)The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Section 41 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 39 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 38 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 42 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
State Of Punjab vs Gurdial Singh & Ors on 25 October, 1979
The decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh, AIR 1980 SC 319, seems to be dealing with another category of
cases where the rule of conclusive evidence would not apply. In this case, mala fide exercise of power was also held to be permitting judicial review. Dealing with mala fides in the jurisprudence of power it was observed as under (Para 9 of AIR):--
Shyam Behari And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others on 3 February, 1964
This was an appeal from the decision of this Court in Shyam Behari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1962 Madh Pra 80. In this case the Notification under Section 4 mentioned acquisition for public purpose and so did the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The Supreme Court considered all facts and circumstances of the case and held that since entire compensation to the land owners was to be paid by the company and no part of the compensation was to come out of public revenue or fund controlled or managed by a local authority, the acquisition was for a company. Since the notification under Section 6 of the Act mentioned acquisition for public purpose, it was held to be invalid for that reason alone. Clearly therefore, if the acquisition is for a company, but notification and declaration mention it was acquistion for a public purpose, the notification would not be sustainedSn law.