Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (3.81 seconds)Section 6 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
State Of Haryana vs M/S Vinod Oil & General Mills on 23 September, 2014
In State of Haryana and Others vs. Vinod Oil and General Mills and Another
(2014) 15 SCC 410, this Court has held that permission for change of land
use has no relevance while considering the validity of acquisition. It is
further observed in said case that there is no bar to the subsequent
acquisition of a land, after the land was released from earlier
acquisition.
A.P. Pollution Control Board Ii vs Prof.M.V. Nayudu (Retd.)And Ors on 1 December, 2000
In A.P. Pollution Control Board II vs. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.) and Others
(2001) 2 SCC 62, this Court has observed in para 69 as under:
Monnet Ispat And Energy Ltd vs Union Of India And Ors on 26 July, 2012
“69. The learned Appellate Authority erred in thinking that because of the
approval of plan by the Panchayat, or conversion of land use by the
Collector or grant of letter of intent by the Central Government, a case
for applying principle of “promissory estoppel” applied to the facts of
this case. There could be no estoppel against the statute…...”
As far as the argument advanced on behalf of the respondent relating to
the promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation is concerned, in Monnet
Ispat and Energy Limited vs. Union of India and Others (2012) 11 SCC 1,
this Court while enumerating the principles relating to doctrine of
promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation has clearly held that the
protection of legitimate expectation does not require the fulfillment of
the expectation where an overriding public interest requires otherwise. In
other words, personal benefit must give way to public interest and the
doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked which would block
public interest for private benefit.
Hira Tikkoo vs Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors on 13 April, 2004
“22. In public law in certain situations, relief to the parties aggrieved
by action or promises of public authorities can be granted on the doctrine
of “legitimate expectation” but when grant of such relief is likely to harm
larger public interest, the doctrine cannot be allowed to be pressed into
service. We may usefully call in aid the legal maxim: “Salus Populi est
suprema lex: regard for the public welfare is the higher law.” This
principle is based on the implied agreement of every member of society that
his own individual welfare shall in cases of necessity yield to that of
community. His property, liberty and life shall under certain circumstances
be placed in jeopardy or even sacrificed for the public good.”
In view of the principle of law laid down by this Court as above, in our
opinion the High Court has erred in quashing the acquisition of land in
question, by applying doctrine of promissory estoppel and legitimate
expectation, in the facts of the present case. We have no hesitation in
holding that the purpose i.e. for expansion and systematic development of
Surajkund Tourist Complex, is a public purpose. It included development of
parking area adjacent to Surajkund Tourist Complex near annual Surajkund
Fair. We are of the view that the High Court is incorrect in holding that
the State has not acted bonafide, after 1992 acquisition proceedings were
dropped. It is apparent from the record that earlier proceedings were
dropped in the light of orders passed in M.C. Mehta’s Case in the year
1996, restraining construction in the area, and after modification in the
said order in the year 1998, the State took fresh decision to acquire the
land for public purpose and there is no illegality in the same.
M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 March, 2004
Learned counsel for the appellant State submitted that annual Surajkund
Mela, is held every year in February in Faridabad District, and has become
a regular feature of international fame. As such, there was need to
develop Surajkund Tourist Complex by acquiring land adjoining to Surajkund
Mela ground in Faridabad. It is also pointed out that significance of
Surajkund fair was noticed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 4677 of 1985 (M.C.
Mehta vs. Union of India and ors.) wherein effective directions were issued
in the year 1996 to protect and maintain the sanctity of the area. The
acquisition of subject-land is thus not only in public interest but also to
maintain the integral development of the Surajkund Complex in a unified and
planned manner. It is contended that while quashing the notifications
mentioned above, the High Court has erred in not considering the public
interest and public purpose over private interest of the respondent/writ
petitioner, a private colonizer. The impugned order passed by the High
Court has been assailed by the appellant, also on the ground that the
equity doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation were
wrongly applied by the High Court in favour of respondent No. 1. It is
stated that before issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) objections filed on behalf of
respondent No. 1 under Section 5A of the Act were duly considered by the
authority concerned, and there was no illegality in the acquisition.
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Sooraram Pratap Reddy & Ors vs Distt. Collector, Ranga Reddy Dist.& ... on 5 September, 2008
In Sooraram Pratap Reddy (supra), this Court
has further explained that the meaning of expression “public purpose” is
wider than that of “public necessity”.
1