Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (0.33 seconds)Section 4 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
New Okhla Industrial Devt.Auth vs Harkishan (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & Ors on 27 January, 2017
27. Likewise when the declaration under Section 6 was issued on 16.02.2001, the same was also issued along with Section 17 of the Act meaning thereby that the urgency clause had been invoked by the Government while issuing the notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894, Act and consequently, the possession of the land passed to the Government and stood vested in the Government. Once possession of the land was taken by the Government accordingly keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Prasad Jain (supra) and followed as recently as in the case of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (supra), it cannot be said that the proceedings stood lapsed in view of Section-11A of the 1894 Act.
Section 24 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Banda Development Authority Through ... vs Moti Lal Agarwal on 10 July, 2015
36. Thus, keeping in view the discussion made above even the challenge raised pertaining to the possession of the land having not been taken in accordance with the principles of law laid down in Banda Development Authority (supra) fails.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Satendra Prasad Jain And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others on 16 September, 1993
27. Likewise when the declaration under Section 6 was issued on 16.02.2001, the same was also issued along with Section 17 of the Act meaning thereby that the urgency clause had been invoked by the Government while issuing the notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894, Act and consequently, the possession of the land passed to the Government and stood vested in the Government. Once possession of the land was taken by the Government accordingly keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Prasad Jain (supra) and followed as recently as in the case of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (supra), it cannot be said that the proceedings stood lapsed in view of Section-11A of the 1894 Act.
Collector Of Land Acquisition & Ors vs M/S. Andaman Timber Industries on 11 December, 2014
In support thereof reliance has been placed by the learned counsels upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satendra Prasad Jain and others vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (1993)4 SCC 369, Awadh Bihari Yadav and others vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (1995)6 SCC 31, Pratap and another vs. State of Rajasthan and others reported in (1996)3 SCC 1, Collector of Land Acquisition and others vs. Andaman Timber Industries reported in (2014)16 SCC 780, Banda Development Authority (supra) and New Okhla Industrial Development Authority vs. Harkishan (dead) through legal representative and others (supra).