Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.25 seconds)Section 6 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Section 17 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Sadruddin Suleman Jhaveri vs J.H. Patwardhan And Ors. on 31 July, 1964
18. As regards the other points urged on behalf of the petitioner, our attention was invited to the decision in Sadruddin Suleman Jhaveri v. J.H. Patwardhan and others, , in which a Division Bench of this Court had pointed out that for exercise of powers under section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (as it stood prior to the amendment), five essential conditions, which were not depending on subjective satisfaction of the Authority, had to be fulfilled and their fulfillment had to be objectively proved. According to section 17(1), as it then was, the five concepts involved therein were : (1) the existence of urgency, (2) a direction from the appropriate Government or the Commissioner, (3) waste or arable land, (4) need for a public purpose and (5) need for a Company. On the facts of the case, the Bench had found that the Authority, who had to consider the relevant question, had not applied his mind to consider whether or not, the land sought to be acquired was an arable land or a waste land. Therefore, the Court had come to the conclusion that there was no application of mind. It was in those circumstances, that the invocation of section 17(1) of the Act was set aside.
Raja Anand Brahma Shah vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors. on 16 September, 1966
19. Later on, in Raja Anand Brahma Shah v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others, , the Supreme Court itself held that the opinion of the State Government for the purposes of section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act could be challenged as ultra vires in a Court of law only if it could be shown that the State Government had never applied its mind to the matter or that the action of the State Government was mala fide.
Ramjas Foundation And Ors vs U.O.I. And Ors on 13 November, 1992
17. This point has been recently considered by this Court in the Writ Petition No. 654 of 1993 decided on 29th March, 1994. On the basis of the rulings in The Ramjas Foundation and others v. Union of India and other, , Hari Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others, , and Tamil Nadu State Housing Board, Madras v. Shammugha Sundara Nadar and others, , this Court had taken a view that a petition of the present type could be dismissed on the ground of laches.