Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (1.17 seconds)
Sunit Kumar Tyagi vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 23 May, 2002 cites

Ramniklal N. Bhutta & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 19 November, 1996

7. Sri W. H. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the State Government has acquired the petitioner's plots by issuing notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act and, therefore, the Collector is bound to make an awrrd under Section 11 of the Act and to pay compensation to him. He as referred to Ramniklal N. Bhutta and another v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 1996 AWC (Suppl) 1.49 (SC) (NOC) : (1997) 1 SCC 134, wherein it has been held that once a notification under Section 4 and a declaration under Section 6 of the Act is made, the Land Acquisition Officer has no power to decline to pass the award in respect of land(s) notified, either partially or wholly. It has been further held that unless and until the land(s) are denotified under and in accordance with Section 48, the Land Acquisition Officer has to pass an award with respect to the lands notified.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 576 - B P Reddy - Full Document
1   2 Next