Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.28 seconds)Section 4 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 9 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Patel Shankerbhai Mahijibhai vs State Of Gujarat on 1 May, 1980
In the case of Patel Shankerbhai Mahijibhai v. State of Gujarat, reported in (1980),21 (2) Guj LR239: (AIR 1981 Guj 67) the Supreme Court has accepted the principle that the statutory power must be exercised within a reasonable period of time. What is reasonable period of time in a given case, according to Supreme Court, it depends upon the facts of the case. The Supreme Court further states that it is a highly flexible concept and its application varies from case to case depending upon the facts of each case.
Bhagwanji Bawanji Patel vs State Of Gujarat And Anr. on 24 February, 1970
In the case of Bhagwanji Bawanji Patel v. State of Gujarat, reported in (1971) 12 Guj LR 156 : (AIR 1971 Guj 64) the principle as regards the limitation stressed in (1969) 10 Guj LR 992 : (AIR 1969 SC 1297) was approved.
Sri Sita Ram Sugar Mills Ltd., ... vs Their Workmen Intervener: The State Of ... on 21 March, 1960
The Supreme Court further held :
Ajay Hasia Etc vs Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. Etc on 13 November, 1980
33. Then Mr. Oza pointed out the decision in the case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib reported in AIR 1981 SC487. In this decision the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the ambit of Art. 14 of the Constitution. It held that originally Art. 14 was identified with the doctrine of classification because the view taken was that the Article forbids discrimination and there would be no discrimination where the classification making the differential fulfils two conditions i.e. (i) that the classification is founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group; and (ii) that that differentia has a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the impugned legislative or executive action. Continuing further the Supreme Court observed that this principle was enlarged subsequent to the above decisions and pointed out that Art. 14 has highly activist magnitude and it embodies a guarantee against arbitrariness.