Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.26 seconds)Section 4 in The Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [Entire Act]
Section 24 in The Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [Entire Act]
The National Highways Act, 1956
M/S Magnum Promoters P.Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 November, 2014
21] Thus, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the aforesaid
notification has been issued under the name of, and by the authority
of State Government only. At this juncture, this Court can also
fruitfully rely on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the
case of Magnum Promoters (P) Ltd. v. Union of India reported as
(2015) 3 SCC 327 the relevant para 26 of the same reads as under:-
Article 239AA in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Dda vs Manohar Lal And Co. on 12 January, 2006
"29. Further, on the plea taken by the learned counsel on behalf
of Respondents 2 and 3 regarding contravention of Sections 3 and
4 of the 1972 Act for transfer of the land in question by the
appellant during the pendency of the proceedings as it was
acquired by NCT on behalf of the Central Government by placing
reliance on Article 239-AA of the Constitution, with respect to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA
Signing time: 2/23/2024
3:33:03 PM
240
contention of the 1972 Act is concerned, the same has no
application to the fact situation. In view of the said provision, it has
been contended by the learned counsel on behalf of Respondents 2,
3 and 4 that the Land and Home subject-matters that are in Delhi
are still with the Central Government and therefore, the acquisition
of land by NCT is the acquisition made by it on behalf of the
Central Government. This is a far-fetched argument of the learned
counsel and therefore, the same cannot be accepted by us for the
reason that the acquisition notification available in the original
record would clearly show that the land is acquired by NCT, Delhi
and not on behalf of the Central Government. Hence, the said
contention is liable to be rejected and accordingly rejected.‖
(Emphasis Supplied)
22] Although this decision has been impliedly overruled in the
case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Mahohar Lal and
Others reported as (2020) 8 SCC 129, but in para 365, it is
overruled on the point of applicability of s.24 of the Act of 2013,
and not on the point of appropriate government.