Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (0.42 seconds)Section 6 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 30 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 9 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
V.Chandrasekaran & Anr vs Administrative Officer & Ors on 18 September, 2012
"33. The other decision relied upon by the Society is V.
Chandrasekaran v. Administrative Officer 18,wherein this
Court laid down thus:( SCC p. 144, paras 17-18).
Meera Sahni vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 22 July, 2019
In Ajay Kishan Singhal v. Union of India 19 ; Mahavir v.
Rural Institute20, Gian Chand v. Gopala21 and Meera Sahni v.
State (NCT of Delhi)22, this Court categorically held that a
person who purchases land after the publication of a Section
4 Notification with respect to it, is not entitled to challenge
the proceedings for the reason, that his title is void and he
can at best claim compensation on the basis of vendor's title.
In view of this, the sale of land after issuance of a Section 4
Notification is void, and the purchaser cannot challenge the
acquisition proceedings.
Gian Chand vs Gopala & Ors on 18 January, 1995
In Ajay Kishan Singhal v. Union of India 19 ; Mahavir v.
Rural Institute20, Gian Chand v. Gopala21 and Meera Sahni v.
State (NCT of Delhi)22, this Court categorically held that a
person who purchases land after the publication of a Section
4 Notification with respect to it, is not entitled to challenge
the proceedings for the reason, that his title is void and he
can at best claim compensation on the basis of vendor's title.
In view of this, the sale of land after issuance of a Section 4
Notification is void, and the purchaser cannot challenge the
acquisition proceedings.
Union Of India vs Shivkumar Bhargava And Ors on 17 January, 1995
23. Mr. Punde submitted that Shivkumar (supra) and the
several decisions referred to in paragraphs 7.1 to 7.7 of Shiv
Kumar (supra) hold that a subsequent purchaser would be
entitled to receive compensation. He submitted that under
Section 3(b), the Petitioner was a "person interested" since
the Petitioner was claiming an interest in compensation to be
made on account of the land acquisition under the L. A. Act.