Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.32 seconds)
C. Govindarajan vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 27 April, 2007 cites

Jage Ram And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 2 March, 1971

"5.The question of urgency of an acquisition under Sections 17(1) and (4) of the Act is a matter of subjective satisfaction of the Government and ordinarily it is not open to the court to make a scrutiny of the propriety of that satisfaction on an objective appraisal of facts. In this view of the matter when the Government takes a decision, taking all relevant considerations into account and is satisfied that there exists emergency for invoking powers under Sections 17(1) and (4) of the Act, and issues notification accordingly, the same should not be interfered with by the court unless the court comes to the conclusion that the appropriate authority had not applied its mind to the relevant factors or that the decision has been taken by the appropriate authority mala fide. Whether in a given situation there existed urgency or not is left to the discretion and decision of the authorities concerned. If an order invoking power under Section 17(4) is assailed, the courts may enquire whether the appropriate authority had all the relevant materials before it or whether the order has been passed by non-application of mind. Any post-notification delay subsequent to the decision of the State Government dispensing with an enquiry under Section 5-A by invoking powers under Section 17(1) of the Act would not invalidate the decision itself specially when no mala fides on the part of the Government or its officers are alleged. Opinion of the State Government can be challenged in a court of law if it could be shown that the State Government never applied its mind to the matter or that action of the State Government is mala fide. Though the satisfaction under Section 17(4) is a subjective one and is not open to challenge before a court of law, except for the grounds already indicated, but the said satisfaction must be of the appropriate government and that the satisfaction must be, as to the existence of an urgency. The conclusion of the Government that there was urgency, even though cannot be conclusive, but is entitled to great weight, as has been held by this Court in Jage Ram v. State of Haryana. Even a mere allegation that power was exercised mala fide would not be enough and in support of such allegation specific materials should be placed before the court. The burden of establishing mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles, if the circumstances of the case in hand are examined it would appear that the premises in question were required for the students of National Medical College, Calcutta and the notification issued in December 1982 had been quashed by the Court and the subsequent notification issued on 25-2-1994 also had been quashed by the Court. It is only thereafter the notification was issued under Sections 4(1) and 17(4) of the Act on 29-11-1994, which came up for consideration before the High Court. Apart from the fact that there had already been considerable delay in acquiring the premises in question on account of the intervention by courts, the premises were badly needed for the occupation by the students of National Medical College, Calcutta. Thus, existence of urgency was writ large on the facts of the case and therefore, the said exercise of power in the case in hand, cannot be interfered with by a court of law on a conclusion that there did not exist any emergency. The conclusion of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, therefore, is unsustainable."
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 149 - K S Hegde - Full Document

Rajasthan Housing Board And Ors. Etc. ... vs Kishan And Ors. Etc. Etc on 27 January, 1993

In Rajasthan Housing Board v. Shri Kishan (SCC at p.91), this Court had held that it must be remembered that the satisfaction under Section 17(4) is a subjective one and that so long as there is material upon which Government could have formed the said satisfaction fairly, the Court would not interfere nor would it examine the material as an appellate authority.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 126 - B P Reddy - Full Document
1   2 Next