Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.31 seconds)
Maya Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 16 July, 1981 cites

Khadim Hussain vs State Of U.P. & Others on 18 December, 1975

The order passed under S. 31 was taken to be a declaration under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and the plea of the land owners that the notification under Section 32(1) of the 1966 Act having been published beyond three years no declaration under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act could be made on that date was negatived. The present case is therefore, squarely covered by this decision of the Supreme Court. However, Mr. Kuldip Singh, learned counsel for the appellant urged that according to Clause 2 it is not the order sanctioning the scheme which is equated to declaration under S. 6 ad instead it is the notification of the sanction which is so equated. He further argued that the attention of their Lordship of the Supreme Court in Khadim Hussain's case (AIR 1976 Sc. 417)(supra) was not drawn to this aspect and the case was decided on the assumption that the order sanctioning the scheme amounted to a declaration under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. There is some substances in the contention of the learned counsel because according to Clause 2 of the Schedule reproduced above it is the publication of the notification under S. 42 which has the effect of a declaration under S. 6 of the Land acquisition Act and not the order sanctioning the scheme under Section 41 of the Act. But for this reason we are not competent to take a different we are not competent to take a different view of the law as laid down by the Supreme Court. The said clause has, in fact been reproduced in the judgment in paragraph 19. It cannot, therefore, be said that their Lordship of the Supreme Court were not conscious of the provisions of the said clause. In the contrary in spite of its provisions the order sanctioning the scheme under S. 31 of the U. P. Act was taken to be a declaration for the purpose of S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. As we are bound to follow the law declared by the Supreme Court, we have no option but to reject the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 31 - M H Beg - Full Document
1   2 Next