Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.70 seconds)Section 4 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Narmada Bachao Andolan vs Union Of India And Others on 18 October, 2000
This Court in its judgment in Narmada Bachao Andolan (supra) permitted
construction of the dam upto 90 metres and opined that further raising of
the height would be only pari passu with the implementation of the relief
and rehabilitation measures.
Section 6 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Godfrey Phillips(I)Ltd.& Anr vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 20 January, 2005
[See also Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors.,
(2005) AIR SCW 613]
Once major son comes within the purview of expansive definition of family,
it would be idle to contend that the scheme of giving `land for land' would
be applicable to only those major sons who were landholders in their own
rights If a person was a landholder, he in his own right would be entitled
to the benefit of rehabilitation scheme and, thus, for the said purpose, an
expansive definition of family was not necessarily to be rendered.
Furthermore, if such a meaning is attributed as has been suggested by Mr.
Vaidyanathan, the definition of `family' would be to an extent would become
obscure. As a major son constitutes `separate family' within the
interpretation clause of `family', no meaning thereto can be given.
1