Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.27 seconds)The National Highways Act, 1956
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
The Special Deputy Collector vs Vinodkumar on 18 February, 2020
3. It is the case of the petitioners that since the entitlement of the
landowners for solatium and interest having been declared by the Apex Court,
the petitioners cannot be denied such benefits. Reliance is also placed on the
judgment of this Court in Special Deputy Collector, Thrissur, and
Another v. Vinodkumar and Another [2020 (2) KLT 399] to bring home
WP(C).No.17663 OF 2020 4
their point that the petitioners are also entitled to the solatium and interest.
Raising all these contentions, the petitioners submitted Ext.P4 representation
before the 6th respondent. The limited prayer of the petitioner is to direct the
6th respondent to consider Ext.P4 representation within a time frame.
Section 3G in The National Highways Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Union Of India & Anr vs Tarsem Singh on 13 August, 2008
5. I have considered the submissions advanced. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court had occasion to hold as follows in Union of India and
another v. Tarsem Singh case (Supra);
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India vs Tarsem Singh on 19 September, 2019
2. The petitioners contend that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Union of India and Another v. Tarsem Singh and Others [(2019) 9 SCC
304] had declared that Section 3J of the National Highways Act insofar as it
deprives the landowner of solatium and interest in Section 23(1A) and (2) and
interest payable in terms of the proviso to Section 28 is unconstitutional and
that those benevolent provisions would apply to acquisitions made under the
National Highways Act as well.
1