Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.28 seconds)The Orissa Development Authorities Act, 1982
Section 11 in The Orissa Development Authorities Act, 1982 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Orissa Development Authorities Act, 1982 [Entire Act]
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Section 16 in The Orissa Development Authorities Act, 1982 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Orissa Development Authorities Act, 1982 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Orissa Development Authorities Act, 1982 [Entire Act]
Gajanan Maganlal Parikh And Ors. vs Municipal Corporation, Dana Pith And ... on 16 April, 1991
In support of this contention, the learned counsel places reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Mohammed Yousef, AIR 1992 SC 1827 : (1992 AIR SCW 1674), as well as on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Gajanan Maganlal Parikh v. Municipal Corporation, Dana Pith, AIR 1993 Guj 53. In the former case, the apex Court was considering the question of an acquisition in Tamil Nadu, where the Madras State Housing Board Act was in force. The Supreme Court after noticing the different provisions of the Madras State Housing Board Act as well as the Land Acquisition Act came to the conclusion that an acquisition of land is a part and parcel of the scheme under the Madras Housing Board Act and under the Scheme, the process of execution starts immediately when steps for acquisition are taken and, therefore, proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act read with Section 70 of the Madras Housing Board Act can be commenced only after framing the Scheme for which the land is required. The aforesaid decision undoubtedly supports Mr. Mohanty's contention fully. The other decision of the Gujarat High Court on which reliance was also placed considered the legality of an acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act while the Bombay Town Planning Act was in force. After examining the provisions of both Acts, the learned Judges held that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act should be withheld until completion of the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. Though this decision is not directly on the point in issue, yet indirectly it also supports the contention of Mr. Mohanty, the learned counsel for the petitioners.
M.K. Jhunjhunwala And Ors. vs State Of Orissa And Ors. on 30 March, 1989
2. An acquisition proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act 1 of 1894) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is under challenge in these writ applications. The land in question had been acquired by the Government of Orissa in the Revenue Department for the purpose of development of New Capital by notification dated 26th of March, 1984, and along with the notification under Section 4(1), the State Government had invoked the emergency provision and had issued notification under Sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 17 of the Act. The petitioners assailed the validity of the acquisition in O.J.C. No. 2412 of 1984 and this Court quashed the said proceeding by judgment dated 30th of March, 1989, which decision has since been reported in AIR 1989 Orissa 219 (M.K.Jhunjhunwala v. State of Orissa). The proceeding had been quashed on the ground that there had been an inordinate delay of more than three years between the issuance of the notification under Section 17(4) of the Act and declaration made under Section 6 of the Act which indicates that there was no urgency for the acquisition in question. Though the acquisition proceeding had been quashed, but it had been observed that the Government would be free in starting a fresh acquisition proceeding if the land is still required for any public purpose.