Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.27 seconds)The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Section 4 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... vs The Industrial Development & ... on 6 September, 1996
In the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. , the Supreme Court also stated that Section 126 (1) of the MRTP Act is a substitute for Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. No. rmally, the date of notification under Section 4 of the Acquisition Act or under section 126 of the Planning Act would be the relevant date but when by the act of the parties and with their consent, the date is altered and it is taken by virtue of deemed fiction to be 1.4.1982, we hardly see any reason to alter that date particularly when the same has been accepted by the Supreme Court and subsequently, acted upon by the reference court without any objection or protest from either parties to the lis.
Section 6 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Raj Kumar Johri And Anr vs State Of M.P. And Ors on 7 March, 2002
In the case of Raj Kumar Johri and Anr. v. State of M.P. and Ors. , it was held that deemed date of notification was given by creating a legal fiction for giving enhanced compensation and it has to be limited to that only. It cannot be extended beyond it leading to the issuance of fresh declaration or giving a fresh award.
Mahadeo Bajirao Patil vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 6 September, 2005
In the case of Mahadeo Bajirao Patil v. State of Maharashtra the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly enunciated the principle that power to condone the delay beyond the prescribed period of six weeks is not vested with the Collector or the Court.