Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 45 (0.99 seconds)
Smt Asha Goyal vs State (Urban Development Dep)Ors on 27 October, 2016 cites

Deepak Pahwa Etc vs Lt. Governer Of Delhi And Ors on 22 August, 1984

The further submission made that Notification u/Sec.4(1) of the Act, 1894 was published in the official gazette on 23.08.2007 and in both the newspapers on 06/08.11.2007 and public notice of substance of Notification was affixed in the locality on 28.08.2008 and the three modes of publication of Notification have no contemporaneity in publication u/Sec.4 of the Act is of no substance for the reason that indeed there is no time limit prescribed under the Act while making publication of Notification as prescribed u/Sec.4 of the Act but at the same time, it is equally true that the time factor is certainly a vital element and publication of the Notification in the gazette & in two newspapers and that of public notice of substance of Notification, though may not be simultaneously or immediately or one after the other but there must have some contemporaneity in the modes of -27- D.B. SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.1283/2014 & 71 Others publication, as prayed but that gap of time in itself may not vitiate the acquisition proceedings and it has to be established by the appellants/land holders/objectors that delay, if any, has caused prejudice to anyone and this was never the case of either of the appellants neither before the ld.Single Judge nor before this court and the judgment relied upon in Deepak Pahwa & Ors. Vs. Lt.Governor of Delhi & Ors. reported in (1984) 4 SCC 308 by the appellants is of pre-amendment, 1984 where there was only two modes of publication - first in the official gazette & second of public notice of the substance in the locality and it was held that delay in itself is not sufficient to vitiate the acquisition proceedings.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 105 - O C Reddy - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next