Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.34 seconds)
The Executive Engineer Jalna Minor ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 18 December, 2017
cites
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Section 28 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Parasmal Son Of Kunjilal Jain vs The State Of Maharashtra Through on 13 March, 2014
22 In the matter of Parasmal Kunjilal Jain (supra), the learned
Division Bench of this Court concluded that Section 5 of the Limitation Act
was not applicable to the proceedings under Section 28-A as the
Collector/ Land Acquisition Officer was not a court. It was thus, concluded
that the delay, if any, even after the exclusion of the period for obtaining
the certified copy, was not condonable.
Chairman And Managing Director Fci vs Jagdish Balaram Bahira on 6 July, 2017
12 I find it quite conspicuous as to how could the Inward
Registers go missing or whether, such Inward Registers have been held
back from the Court. I would be failing in my duty if I do not direct the
District Collector, Jalna to initiate an enquiry into this aspect since this is
not a minor issue keeping in mind that if there is any suspicious act or
conduct on the part of any person in charge of receiving the applications,
it would lead to payment of enhanced compensation under Section 28-A
::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:42:01 :::
*14* wp5754o16grouplandacqusiton
to some of the claimants, who are parties to such a mischief.
13 While dealing with the acts, which amount to deviation from
the rule of law, in the matter of Chairman and Managing Director, Food
Corporation of India and others vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and others,
(2017) 8 SCC 670, the Honourable Supreme Court has concluded in
paragraph 68 as under:-
Tota Ram vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 9 July, 1997
In this view of the matter, we do not think that the
judgment rendered by this Court in Tota Ram (supra)
requires re-consideration."
Union Of India & Ors. vs Mangat Ram & Ors. on 22 July, 2009
Same view is expressed by this Court in Union
of India and Ors. v. Mangatu Ram and Ors [1997] 6
::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:42:01 :::
*18* wp5754o16grouplandacqusiton
SCC 59 and Jose Antonio Cruz Dos R. Rodriguese and
Anr. v. Land Acquisition Collector and Anr., [1996] 6
SCC 746.
Jose Antonio Cruz Dos R. Rodriguese And ... vs Land Acquisition Collector And Anr on 20 November, 1996
Same view is expressed by this Court in Union
of India and Ors. v. Mangatu Ram and Ors [1997] 6
::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:42:01 :::
*18* wp5754o16grouplandacqusiton
SCC 59 and Jose Antonio Cruz Dos R. Rodriguese and
Anr. v. Land Acquisition Collector and Anr., [1996] 6
SCC 746.
Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh vs The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer And ... on 30 March, 1961
11. The learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the
decision of this Court in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh
v. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and Anr., [1962]
1 SCR 676, which is approved by three Judge Bench in
State of Punjab v. Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum and Anr.,
[1964] 1 SCR 971. In that case the Court interpreted
the proviso to Section 18 of the Act and held that clause
State Of Punjab vs Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum And Anr on 11 February, 1963
11. The learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the
decision of this Court in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh
v. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and Anr., [1962]
1 SCR 676, which is approved by three Judge Bench in
State of Punjab v. Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum and Anr.,
[1964] 1 SCR 971. In that case the Court interpreted
the proviso to Section 18 of the Act and held that clause