Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.36 seconds)

Satyawati Sharma (Dead) By Lrs vs Union Of India & Another on 16 April, 2008

101. Now the question arises whether the petitioners are entitled to payment of interest since the date of their dispossession which is prior to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court in "Bhola Nath Sharma through Lrs Vs Union of India through LAC & Anr ( Supra) held that, "If the possession is taken prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) it would not be in accordance with Section 16 or 17 and will be without any authority of law and consequently cannot be recognized for the purposes of the Act".
Supreme Court of India Cites 77 - Cited by 1265 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

Virender Sood vs Uoi & Ors. on 15 November, 2017

68. The Judgment Ex PW-9/5 given by Ld ADJ, Sh. O.P. Gupta in a case titled as "Virender Sood Vs Union of India relates to Award no. 16 of village Basai Darapur. But this judgment cannot be considered because the award in above said reference judgment was pertaining to the land which is commercial in nature and petitioners of above case had also filed writ petition in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 46 of 66 for giving direction to MCD to sanction him plan for construction of commercial complex and the acquired land of the said award was situated in Kirti Nagar, which is a hub of timber market. Award no. 13 and Award no. 14 Ex. PW-5/1 & Ex. PW-5/2 are also of commercial land and pertained to the above-said acquired land and can not be considered for assessing market value of the acquired land of present award on the same analogy.
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 13 - V Sanghi - Full Document
1   2 3 Next