Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.23 seconds)
The Radha Soami Satsang Beas And Anr. vs The Delhi Administration And Anr. on 15 October, 2004
cites
Section 4 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 26 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Bramchari Sidheswar Bhai &Ors.Etc vs State Of West Bengal Etc on 2 July, 1995
The formulation enunciated by the Supreme Court has been subsequently applied in several other cases. Thus sects/ denominations such the Ramakrishna Mission (Bramchari Sidheswhar Shai's case, supra); Ananda Marg27 Arya Samaj28 etc have been held to fall within the expression religious denomination.
State Of Punjab And Ors vs Gurdev Singh, Ashok Kumar on 21 August, 1991
In State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh30 it was further held as follows:
Rafique Bibi (D) By Lrs vs Syed Waliuddin (D) By Lrs. And Ors on 28 August, 2003
37. At first blush, these arguments are persuasive. What however, emerges upon a deeper analysis is that it is premised upon the void order having no force of law at all- something that is not tenable. All the authorities, right from Smith vs- East Eloe onwards, have emphasized that no order carries a brand of invalidity upon its forehead; it continues to have validity and efficacy till challenged in competent proceedings. In the present case, the proceedings were instituted 19 long years after the reliminary notification; nine years after the award was issued. Delay in taking possession of lands does not render the acquisition proceedings invalid or illegal. Furthermore, if the argument were to be taken to its logical conclusion, even though possession is not sought to be taken 20 years after the award is made, a petition under Article 226 could yet be maintained successfully, since the initial order is non-est. It is precisely this kind of contention that the Supreme Court had in mind when it remarked, while quoting Wade, ( in Rafique Bibi's case, supra) that:
Vishwas Nagar Evacuee Plot Purchasers ... vs Under Secretary, Delhi Admn. And Others on 27 February, 1990
36. The petitioners have sought to meet these with the submission that in several cases, this court has granted relief, in respect of void land acquisition proceedings, provided possession is not taken. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the decisions in Ramesh Chand Chopra; Ram Chand and Matwal Chand's case (supra). The further argument of the petitioners is that till an attempt is made to secure possession, there is no occasion for a person to feel aggrieved, particularly against an order hich is a nullity and non-est since inception.