Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.27 seconds)Ajit Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 16 September, 1999
The law laid down by the Division Bench cannot stand to the scrutiny of law later laid down by the Supreme Court in Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab (supra). Even otherwise, in the facts and circumstances of the case and by the act and conduct of the writ petitioners, we find, as observed above, that an oral protest must have been made and has in fact been made.
S.M.A. Somasundaram Mudaliar vs District Collector Chittoor And Anr. on 17 April, 1963
Even assuming that the law laid own by the Division Bench in Somasundaram v. District Collector (supra) is correct, inspite of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the later cases, a finding cannot be returned in this case as of fact that protest was not raised by the land owners when the amount was tendered.
Wardington Lyngdoh & Ors vs The Collector, Mawkyrwat on 17 April, 1995
3. The learned Government Pleader relied on Wardington Lyngdoh v. Collector, . The judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant is with respect to the particular facts and circumstances of that case. The question was whether there was in fact a protest or not. The question whether the protest was express or implied did not fall for consideration before the Supreme Court. When there are two contradictory views of co-ordinate Benches, it is for the Court to take that which is inconsonance with the statutory provisions of law and more reasonable. The judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant does not refer to the statutory provisions of the Act nor has dealt with the earlier consistent law laid down by the Supreme Court.
Section 9 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
1