Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.23 seconds)Section 4 in The Urban land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Northern Indian Glass Industries vs Jaswant Singh And Ors on 29 October, 2002
In Northern Indian Glass Industries Vs. Jaswant Singh & ors., AIR 2003 SC 234, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the High Court cannot ignore the delay and laches in approaching the writ court and there must be satisfactory explanation by the petitioner as how he could not come to the Court well in time.
Smt. Sudama Devi vs Commissioner And Ors. on 14 January, 1983
23. The issue of delay in filing the writ petition was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt. Sudama Devi Vs. Commissioner & ors., (1983) 2 SCC 1, wherein the Apex Court has observed as under:-
State Of Orissa vs Dhobei Sethi And Another on 29 August, 1995
13. Similarly, in State of Maharashtra Vs. Digambar, AIR 1995 SC 1991; and State of Orissa Vs. Dhobei Sethi & Anr., (1995) 5 SCC 583, the Apex Court held that if the land acquisition proceedings stood finalised, interference by the writ court, quashing notification and declaration under Sections 4 and 6 respectively, was unwarranted and uncalled for. Exercise of jurisdiction in such a case cannot be said to be judicious and reasonable.
Pt. Girdharan Prasad Missir And Anr. vs State Of Bihar And Anr. on 6 August, 1979
14. Similar view has been reiterated in Girdharan Prasad Missir Vs. State of Bihar, (1980) 2 SCC 83; H.D. Vora Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 866; Ram Chand Vs. Union of India, (1994) 1 SCC 44; Bhoop Singh Vs. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 1414, and C. Padma Vs. Deputy Secretary to Govt. of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 2 SCC 627).
H. D. Vora vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 22 February, 1984
14. Similar view has been reiterated in Girdharan Prasad Missir Vs. State of Bihar, (1980) 2 SCC 83; H.D. Vora Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 866; Ram Chand Vs. Union of India, (1994) 1 SCC 44; Bhoop Singh Vs. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 1414, and C. Padma Vs. Deputy Secretary to Govt. of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 2 SCC 627).
Ram Chand And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 30 September, 1993
14. Similar view has been reiterated in Girdharan Prasad Missir Vs. State of Bihar, (1980) 2 SCC 83; H.D. Vora Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 866; Ram Chand Vs. Union of India, (1994) 1 SCC 44; Bhoop Singh Vs. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 1414, and C. Padma Vs. Deputy Secretary to Govt. of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 2 SCC 627).
Hari Singh & Ors vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 6 April, 1984
In Hari Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1984 SC 1020, the Apex Court held that where a large area of land is acquired and the plots, which are subject to acquisition, belong to large number of persons, if other persons have not challenged the acquisition proceedings, it is difficult to believe that appellant was not aware of the initiation of the acquisition proceedings as the acquisition of the said land would be the talk of the town in a short time and if the person interested failed to approach the writ court within reasonable period, the petition should fail only on the ground of delay.