Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.22 seconds)Section 18 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Kiran Tandon vs Allahabad Development Authority & Anr on 23 March, 2004
The relevant portion of the
said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Kiran Tandon v. Allahabad Development
Authority (supra) reads as follows:
The Limitation Act, 1963
Himalayan Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd vs Francis Victor Coutinho (Dead) By Lrs & ... on 28 March, 1980
In the case of Himalayan Tiles & Marbles (P)
Ltd. v. Francis Victor Coutinho (dead) by LRs & Ors.
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the
concept of person interested under section 18 of the
Act of 1894 and found that a company on whose
behalf, the State was acquiring land was certainly a
person interested and that the said concept was to be
construed liberally and as an inclusive definition.
Vijay Shanker Rai And Others vs Sarvjeet Rai And Others on 17 October, 2014
16. Although a specific objection was raised on
behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 that failure to
file application under section 18 of the Act of 1894 by
the respondent No.3 was fatal for consideration of
such a prayer for transposition, applying the said
position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court to the facts of the present case it would become
clear that as long as the respondent No.3 was a party
before the Reference Court as non-applicant No.3, the
remedy for transposition could certainly be
considered. The contention raised on behalf of the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the respondent No.3,
who was non-applicant No.3 before the Reference
Court, had accepted the award, cannot be sustained
in the peculiar facts of the present case, because the
compromise document placed at Exhibit-20 before
the Reference Court clearly states that the respondent
No.3 and the appellant had agreed that the
consolidated cheque towards compensation for the
entire acquired land of 1.63 HR was to be accepted
by the appellant and that the parties were to
cooperate with each other for further action to be
taken in that regard. It is a matter of record that the
consolidated cheque was disbursed by the respondent
Nos.1 and 2 to the appellant, which constituted the
quantum of compensation to the entire 1.63 HR land,
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 18/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/10/2019 01:57:24 :::
caf3217.19.odt
14/16
which included 0.20 HR land belonging to the
respondent No.3. The said cheque was accepted
under protest by the appellant, obviously not only on
his behalf, but also on behalf of his uncle, respondent
No.3 and in terms of the compromise entered into
between them, the reference application was
preferred before the Reference Court, wherein the
respondent No.3 was arrayed as non-applicant No.3.
In view of the said peculiar facts and circumstances of
the present case, it cannot be said that the application
for transposition could not be considered by this
Court only because a separate application under
section 18 of hte Act of 1894, was not preferred by
the respondent No.3 before the Reference Court.
Mukesh Kumar And Ors vs Col. Harbans Waraich And Ors on 27 October, 1999
In the case of Himalayan Tiles & Marbles (P)
Ltd. v. Francis Victor Coutinho (dead) by LRs & Ors.
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the
concept of person interested under section 18 of the
Act of 1894 and found that a company on whose
behalf, the State was acquiring land was certainly a
person interested and that the said concept was to be
construed liberally and as an inclusive definition.