Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)Madhya Pradesh Housing Board Etc vs Mohd. Shafi And Ors. Etc on 13 February, 1992
It has also been settled by the
larger Bench of the Supreme Court in the 'The Madhya Pradesh
Housing Board versus Mohd. Shafi, (1992) 2 SCC 168, that if the
notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act is not issued in accordance
with law or is defective, it would vitiate the proceedings for acquisition
of the land.
Special Deputy Collector vs J. Sivaprakasam & Ors on 18 November, 2010
18. It is important to note that though in Special Deputy Collector,
Land Acquisition CMDA (supra), it may have been held that the non-
publication of the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act in
the newspapers may be fatal to acquisition proceedings but it further
observes that the purpose of publication of such a notification in the
modes prescribed is twofold. First is to ensure adequate publicity to
enable the land owners or the persons interested to file their objections
as required under Section 5A of the Act. Secondly, to put the land
owners/interested persons or the occupants of the land to notice that the
Government officers would be entering upon the land for carrying out
activities in connection with the acquisition. The purpose of such a
publication stands served if the land owners or the persons interested
had notice/knowledge of the acquisition and have filed objections under
8 OWP No. 879 of 2014
Section 5A of the Act in which circumstances non-publication of the
notification in one of the appropriate modes would not affect the rights
of such land owners/persons interested or prejudice their rights.
Accordingly, it was held that whether notification was published in the
newspapers having wide circulation or not would make no difference
and such persons having notice/knowledge of the notification cannot
complain about the publication or the defect in publication of the
notification.
J&K Housing Board & Anr vs Kanwar Sanjay Krishan Kaul & Ors on 4 November, 2011
19. The aforesaid decision is prior in time than the decision of the
Supreme Court rendered in J&K Housing Board and Another (supra),
but it appears that the same was not brought to the notice of the court
while deciding the above case.
The Authorised Officer, Thanjavur & Anr vs S. Naganatha Ayyar on 4 May, 1979
30. The Apex Court in 'the Authorized Officer, Thanjavur and
another versus S. NaganathaAyyar and others', 1979 (3) SCC 466,
observed that procedural irregularities in acquiring the land in the
absence of malafidies needs to be overlooked. The development of
infrastructure should not be hampered and that scope of judicial review
in such matters of land acquisition ought to be very limited. The court
must focus its attention more on social and economic justice and should
not exercise a lethal blow on the entire acquisition proceedings.
The Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
1