Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.32 seconds)Section 31 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Tara Chand vs The Land Acquisition Collector, (Delhi ... on 27 July, 1970
In Tara Chand v. The Land Acquisition Collector, (Delhi Shahdara). , Deshpande. J., of this court was concerned with a case in which an application for reference for enhancement had been made prior to the acceptance of the amount and it was held that the application having been made by a date when the claimant had not received compensation, subsequent receipt of compensation would not constitute any waiver so as to disentitle the claimant to take advantage of the application. The learned Judge noticed all the earlier decisions referred to above except the decisions of the Punjab High Court. It was further observed that all that was required to be decided in such a case was whether a person had waived his right to seek a reference under Section 18 expressly or implied1v by such acceptance considering the facts of the case.
Suresh Chandra Roy vs The Land Acquisition Collector, ... on 29 July, 1963
In Suresh Chandra Roy v. The Land Acquisition Collector, Chinsurah, , a single Judge of that Court held that an application for a reference under Section 18 was not the proper document wherein to record a Protest under which the compensation amount is to be received and that the Protest ought to be made in the application for receiving the disputed amount of compensation and in the receipt granted showing that the disputed amount of compensation money was accepted under Protest.
Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh vs The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer And ... on 30 March, 1961
In Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer, , the Supreme Court was concerned with the construction of clause (b) of proviso to, Section 18 and it was held that where the rights of the person were affected by any order and Period is Prescribed for the enforcement of the remedy by the person aggrieved against the order by reference to the making of the said order, the making of the order must mean either actual or constructive communication of the said order to the party concerned. That being so, the period of six months should commence either from the actual or constructive knowledge of the making of the Award. Mere knowledge of the pendency of proceedings for the acquisition of the land or of the notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act or any public notice with regard to acquisition would not constitute either actual or constructive notice of the making of the Award. The proceedings for the acquisition are distinct from the knowledge as to the actual Award and the date on which it is made. This preliminary objection is accordingly overruled.
Section 12 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Md. Golam Ali Mina And Anr. vs Land Acquisition Collector And Anr. on 2 May, 1968
In Md. Golam Ali Mina v. Land Acquisition Collector, , the application seeking Payment recorded the protest but the endorsement on the reverse by which the payment was received did not contain any word of Protest. It was held that the receipts must be related to the applications and must be linked with it and it could not be held to be the receipt without protest so as to disentitle the applicants to apply for a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The observations made by the Calcutta High Court. In the earlier case reported as to the effect that the protest should be endorsed on the receipt itself was held to be an obiter. The aforesaid case was also held to be distinguishable on its facts. Their Lordships, however, further held that although, their Lordships were not concerned with the earlier case but hastened to add that "if it was intended to hold, in that case that, unless the protest actually appears in the body of the receipt, the receipt must be taken to be a receipt without protest. We are with respect, unable to agree with the said decision, as such statement of the law would be too wide for our acceptance."