Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.19 seconds)Section 6 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Emperor vs Sibnath Banerji on 17 July, 1945
There was an appeal filed against that Judgment before the Privy Council and in delivering the Judgment of the Judicial Committee reported in Kfai-g-Emperor v. Sibnath Banerji (1945) L.R. 72 I.A. 241 : s.c. 48 Bom. L.R. 1 Lord Thankerton at page 261 of the Report reproduced the decision contained in the above passage with approval.
Section 3 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 1 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Sadruddin Suleman Jhaveri vs J.H. Patwardhan And Ors. on 31 July, 1964
He contended that the formation of the opinion as mentioned herein is subjective to the authority, i.e., the Government or the Commissioner as the case may be and that it is not justiciable. He further contended that even if it be held that it is justiciable, there is a recital in each of the two relevant notifications under Section 4 in the words "The Commissioner, Bombay Division, is of the opinion that the said lands are waste or arable lands and that their acquisition is urgently necessary" and that because of that recital a presumption arises that all conditions precedent to the exercise of power under Section 17(4) were duly complied with and satisfied. He contended that in view of that recital it would be open to the petitioner to show by admissible evidence that that recital is false or incorrect, but that in this case the petitioner has not placed any material whatever before the Court to show that in fact any evidence existed. In support of his contention that the formation of opinion under Section 1.7(4) is subjective, Mr. Setalvad relied upon certain authorities. Mr. Sorabji had, however, at the initial stage relied upon the Judgment in Sadruddin v. J.H. Patwardhan (1964) 67 Bom. L.R. 101 and sought to argue that the formation of such opinion is not subjective and that the respondents must establish that conditions precedent to the exercise of that power had in fact been fulfilled.
Section 106 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Raja Anand Brahma Shah vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors. on 16 September, 1966
Mr. Sorabji, however, after Mr. Setalvad's argument, conceded that, in view of the Supreme Court Judgment in Raja Anand v. U.P. State , the formation of such opinion is subjective. It is, therefore, unnecessary for us to refer to the authorities cited on either side on the question whether the formation of that opinion is subjective or not. Mr. Sorabji, however, contended that even though the formation of such opinion is subjective, the respondents must show at least prima facie that conditions precedent are satisfied. He further contended that on the facts of this case materials on which an opinion could be formed that there was urgency were within the knowledge of only the respondents and that the petitioner was and is totally unaware of the same and that therefore when the petitioner has in the Petition specifically challenged the existence of urgency, it is for the respondents to show that there was material on which the Government could form such an opinion, although, of course, the question whether the material was sufficient to form that opinion or not would not be open for being judicially reviewed by a Court of law.