Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.37 seconds)The Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act, 1976
Section 6 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
The Spl. Dy. Collector, L.A., ... vs M.J. Swamy And Ors. on 26 March, 1993
In Special Deputy Collector v. M.J. Swamy, (supra), a full bench of this Court has expressed their view that when once the notification is void, the Collector can restart the process of acquisition afresh and the action of the Collector in such circumstances cannot be said to be illegal.
Allahabad Development Authority vs Nasiruzzaman & Ors on 2 September, 1996
16. While the learned Counsel for the respondents contended that when possession was taken under Section 17(4) of the LA Act, the proceedings under Section 4(1) do not lapse. (Refer : Satendra Prasad Jain v. State of U.P., ; Awadh Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar, ; Allahabad Development Authority v. Nasiruzzaman, ; H.M. Kelogirao v. Govt. of A.P., . When once the proceedings do not lapse, under Section If A of the LA Act, the question of issuance of a fresh notification under Section 4(1) of the LA Act does not arise. The notification dated 31-3-1980 still subsists and, therefore, the relevant date for the purpose of payment of compensation is 31-3-1980 and subsequent notifications issued on 22-2-1990 and 5-12-1996 are illegal as the Government has no power to issue successive notifications while the original notification subsists. Further, in view of the pendency of the proceedings under the ULC Act, the Government need not proceed with the proceedings under the LA Act as acquiring the land under the LA Act is illegal when they are available under the ULC Act.
Section 11 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
The Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966
Dattatraya Govind Mahajan & Ors. Etc vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 27 January, 1977
24. The action of the respondents in not determining and awarding the compensation can neither be declared as unreasonable or oppressive as when once the ULC Act was brought into force, they can await the proceedings under the said Act even though they have initiated the proceedings under the LA Act. It is difficult to countenance the argument of the learned Counsel for the respondents. The observations made in Dattalraya's case (supra) are not relevant to the facts of the present case as in that case the land belonging to the petitioners was reserved under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act for a public purpose. Meanwhile the ULC Act was brought into
force on 28-2-1976 and proceedings for acquisition of vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit placed under the Act were initialed against the petitioners. The petitioners challenged the proceedings under the ULC Act and sought for a declaration that the said ULC Act has no application to the lands reserved for a public purpose under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act and also sought a writ of mandamus for restraining the State Government or its agents from acquiring the land or taking possession of the land under the ULC Act. While refusing to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents frojp taking excess land under the ULC Act as legal, the above observations were made. The Court was not considering the case of a notification having been issued under the LA Act and not payment of compensation even after a lapse of 20 years after taking possession of the land. Therefore, the said judgment has no application to the facts of the present case.
P. Appalamurthy And Ors. vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 24 April, 1981
20. The judgment of the learned single Judge in Appalamurthy's case (supra) was challenged it Writ Appeal No.368/81 and batch. The said Writ Appeals wef'e dismissed confirming the view of the learned single Judge.