Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)Section 17 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 48 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Mukesh Hans Etc. on 17 September, 2004
Therefore, the
requirement of law as laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
the case of Mukesh Hans (supra) is that it is not merely by directing
that the provisions of Section 5A of the Act would not apply, which
would automatically result into dispensation of an enquiry under
that provision. Such type of cases would be where on account of
river action the bridges are to be built and there is hardly any time
with the State to grant an opportunity of hearing or holding enquiry
under Section 5A of the Act.
Section 6 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Hari Ram & Anr vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 11 February, 2010
6. Apart from the aforesaid, we agree with the learned
Single Judge that lapse of 12 years itself be a circumstance to show
that there was a colourable exercise of power. Even on the
question of discrimination reference may be made to the
observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Hari Ram and
another v. State of
of Haryana and others,
others, (2010) 3 SCC 621.
Radhy Shyam(D)Thr. Lrs & Ors vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 15 April, 2011
4. The principles concerning invocation of urgency/
L.P.A. No. 434 of 2004 (O&M) 4
emergency provisions of Section 17(1) and (2) dispensing with
enquiry under Section 5A of the Act have been comprehensively
examined by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Radhy
Shyam v. State of Uttar Pradesh,
Pradesh, (2011) 5 SCC 553.
1