Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.70 seconds)
Robert Prabhat Minz Son Of Late Mathias ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 July, 2025 cites

State Of Jharkhand & Ors vs M/S Cwe-Soma Consortium on 12 July, 2016

14. It is pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Jharkhand & Others vs. M/S CWE-Soma Consortium (supra), had the occasion to consider the provision of Section 41 (3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and it was conscious of the fact that there is no autonomous district council in the State of Bihar or Jharkhand and it has in interpreting the scope and the mandate of Section 41 (3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, did not substitute the words 'Autonomous District Council' with the words 'Tribes Advisory Council'. It is also pertinent to mention here that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the Parliament was very much aware about the verbatim appearing in both the Fifth and Sixth 5 W.P.(C) No.5224 of 2018 (2025:JHHC:17957) Schedule of the Constitution and also the statute, if any, where the words 'Autonomous District Council' has been appearing but still in its wisdom it did not include the words 'Tribes Advisory Council' though there is a reference of the word Fifth Schedule to the Constitution in Section 41 (3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 86 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Sundargarh Zilla Adivasi Adv.Asso.& ... vs State Govt. Of Odisha & Ors on 7 May, 2013

19. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner, in his wisdom, has not made any averment in the Writ Petition that the Parliament has not extended the provision of Part IX A to the Scheduled Areas. So, in the absence of any such basic averment regarding the foundational facts, which is essential to be pleaded, to make the petitioner entitled to any relief and as in the absence of any such basic averment there was no opportunity for the respondents to respond to such contention in their counter-affidavit, this Court is of the considered view that in the facts of the case it is not proper to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the Respondent No.1 to dismantle the 8 W.P.(C) No.5224 of 2018 (2025:JHHC:17957) Ranchi Municipal Corporation. It is also pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had the occasion to consider a similar issue in the case of Sundargarh Zilla Adivasi Advocates Association and others versus State Government of Odisha and others in Writ Petition (Civil) No.215 of 2012 but in which case the similar prayer in respect of the Municipalities in the state of Odisha was dismissed, in the absence of pleadings regarding the foundational facts.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - M B Lokur - Full Document

Bondu Ramaswamy & Ors vs Bangalore Development Authority & Ors on 5 May, 2010

In that case the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India referred to its own judgement in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy versus Bangalore Development Authority reported in (2010) 7 SCC 129 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India explained the purpose behind the introduction of part IX-A of the Constitution of India in paragraph number 43 to 45 which reads as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 102 - Cited by 503 - Full Document
1