Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.34 seconds)Section 6 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 7 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
C.I.T vs N.C.Budharaja And Co on 7 September, 1993
28. However, in Commissioner of Income Tax, Orissa v. Budhraja and Company , the Supreme Court held:
Bhagat Singh Etc vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 8 December, 1998
In Bhagat Singh v. State of U.P. the Supreme Court rejected the contention of the land owners that the proposed acquisition for establishment of a market yard in an area where the Master Plan permitted use of the land for 'light industries' held that the acquisition will not be invalid merely because the land proposed to be acquired is for the purpose other than the one permitted by the Master Plan or Zonal Plan applicable to that locality. It was further held that acquisition will be valid if it is for a public purpose even if it is not for the type of the user permitted by the Master Plan or Zonal Plan in force at the time the acquisition is made and that it will be for the beneficiary of the acquisition to move the competent authority under the Development Act and obtain the sanction of the said authority for suitable modification of the Master Plan so as to permit the use of the land for the public purpose for which the land is acquired.
Aflatoon And Others vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi & Others on 23 August, 1974
33. The ratio laid down in the above mentioned judgments squarely applies to the present cases where the State, under the provisions of the Act is empowered to acquire any land provided it satisfies the test 'public purpose' and when once it acquires the land and becomes its owner, it will be subject to the provisions of the 2006 Act. Therefore, the power of the eminent domain inhered in the State is in no way curtailed, controlled or limited by the provisions of the 2006 Act.
Ajay Krishan Shinghal Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 6 August, 1996
37. A careful reading of the said judgment discloses that Section 42 of the 1995 Act enabled the State Government, at the request of the authority constituted under that Act, to acquire the land owned by the Central Government under the provisions of the Act subject to the conditions laid down in the said provision. Therefore, there was an interplay of the two statutory enactments, viz., 1995 Act and Act, and unless the provisions of the former Act are complied with, the State Government could not validly invoke the provisions of the Act for acquiring the lands. From the above reproduced paragraphs of the judgment of the Supreme Court, it is clear that the acquisition was quashed on the ground that in the absence of a validly declared planning area under the 1995 Act, no valid public purpose could be said to exist. I am, therefore, of the view that the said judgment of the Supreme Court, relating to a case involving two statutory enactments and where the acquisition was invalidated on the ground of violation of mandatory statutory requirements of one of the two enactments, compliance of which was sine qua non for acquisition, has no application to the present case.
Madhya Pradesh Housing Board Etc vs Mohd. Shafi And Ors. Etc on 13 February, 1992
In support of her contention, she relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh Housing Board v. Mohd Safi , Devinder Singh and Ors. Appellant v. State of Punjab and Ors. 2006 (1) ALT (Crl.) 152 (SC) : 207 (1) Decisions To-day (SC) 850