Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.41 seconds)Section 16 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 36 in Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
K.P.M. Basheer Etc vs State Of Karnataka And Anr. Etc on 28 February, 1992
After making reference to the judgments in
Balwant Narayan Bhagde vs. M.D.Bhagwat, Balmok and
Khatri Educational and Industrial Trust vs. State of
Punjab, P.K.Kalburqi vs. State of Karnataka, NTPC Ltd.,
vs. Mahesh Dutta, Sita Ram Bhandar Society vs.
Government of NCET of Delhi, Omprakash Verma vs.
State of A.P. and Naharsingh vs. State of U.P. this Court
laid down the following principles: (Banda Development
Authority case, SCC Page 411, para 37)
National Thermal Power Corpn.Ltd vs Mahesh Dutta And Ors on 16 July, 2009
After making reference to the judgments in
Balwant Narayan Bhagde vs. M.D.Bhagwat, Balmok and
Khatri Educational and Industrial Trust vs. State of
Punjab, P.K.Kalburqi vs. State of Karnataka, NTPC Ltd.,
vs. Mahesh Dutta, Sita Ram Bhandar Society vs.
Government of NCET of Delhi, Omprakash Verma vs.
State of A.P. and Naharsingh vs. State of U.P. this Court
laid down the following principles: (Banda Development
Authority case, SCC Page 411, para 37)
Omprakash Verma & Ors vs State Of A.P. & Ors on 8 October, 2010
After making reference to the judgments in
Balwant Narayan Bhagde vs. M.D.Bhagwat, Balmok and
Khatri Educational and Industrial Trust vs. State of
Punjab, P.K.Kalburqi vs. State of Karnataka, NTPC Ltd.,
vs. Mahesh Dutta, Sita Ram Bhandar Society vs.
Government of NCET of Delhi, Omprakash Verma vs.
State of A.P. and Naharsingh vs. State of U.P. this Court
laid down the following principles: (Banda Development
Authority case, SCC Page 411, para 37)
Special Land Acquisition Officer, ... vs Godrej And Boyce on 27 October, 1987
11. He also relies on the Apex Court's judgment in the
case of SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BOMBAY
AND OTHERS v. M/S.GODREJ AND BOYCE reported in
(1988) 1 SCC 50, wherein it is held that the mere issuance of
the notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 ('the L.A. Act' for short) do not divest the owner of his
rights in the acquired land. All such notifications do not confer
any rights on the State Government to interfere with the
ownership or other rights in the land.
Raghbir Singh Sehrawat vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 23 November, 2011
12. He also sought to draw support from the Apex Court
judgment in the case of RAGHBIR SINGH SEHRAWAT v.
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS reported in (2012) 1 SCC
792 to advance the submission that when it is not the case of
the respondents that the petitioners/their predecessors-in-title
were given the notice that the possession of the acquired land
would be taken on 30.05.1998 and that the petitioners/their
9
predecessors should remain present at the site, the mahazar has
to be dismissed as a self-serving document.
Meenakshi Thimmaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 28 August, 2009
30. It is profitable to refer to this Court's decision in the
case of MEENAKSHI THIMMAIAH AND OTHERS vs. STATE
17
OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in ILR 2010 KAR
62, wherein it is held that the mahazars are not reliable, when