Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 35 (0.37 seconds)Section 3 in The National Highways Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 3A in The National Highways Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Panjabrao Ganpatrao Borade vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 9 March, 2015
Persuaded by the Division Bench judgment of High Court of
Bombay in "Panjabrao v. The State of Maharashtra" (referred
supra) followed by Chhattisgarh High Court in "Anita Agrawal v.
State of Chhattisgarh" (referred supra), we are of the firm view that
fixation of uniform multiplication factor at 1.25 for the lands in rural
areas irrespective of distance between the urban area and proposed
project is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, Rule 28 (1) of Annexure to
G.O.Ms.No.389, Revenue (Land Acquisition) Department dated
20.11.2014 is struck down, while directing the State Government to
modify the multiplication factor depending upon the distance as in
other States refereed supra based on distance between project in
rural areas and urban areas.
Section 3D in The National Highways Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Right to Information Act, 2005
Union Of India & Anr vs M.M. Sarkar on 8 December, 2009
No.16022/6/2016/R.II.1/2016 dated 23.11.2016 and in fact the said
memo was withdrawn. but the request of the learned counsel for the
petitioners cannot be acceded to for the simple reason that the very
issue of memo No.16022/6/2016/R.II.1/2016 dated 23.11.2016
fixing multiplication factor '2' for the lands acquired for widening of
road from Vijayawada to Machilipatnam is contrary to the
requirement under 2nd component of table given in First Schedule of
Act 30 of 2013, when issue of such memo itself is not in accordance
with law, this Court cannot issue direction to pay compensation in
terms of the Memo No.16022/6/2016/R.II.1/2016 dated 23.11.2016,
applying the principle laid down in "Union of India and Others vs.
M.K. Sarkar" (referred supra).
Vishnu Prasad Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh 57 Wpc/1650/2017 ... on 30 October, 2018
Persuaded by the Division Bench judgment of High Court of
Bombay in "Panjabrao v. The State of Maharashtra" (referred
supra) followed by Chhattisgarh High Court in "Anita Agrawal v.
State of Chhattisgarh" (referred supra), we are of the firm view that
fixation of uniform multiplication factor at 1.25 for the lands in rural
areas irrespective of distance between the urban area and proposed
project is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, Rule 28 (1) of Annexure to
G.O.Ms.No.389, Revenue (Land Acquisition) Department dated
20.11.2014 is struck down, while directing the State Government to
modify the multiplication factor depending upon the distance as in
other States refereed supra based on distance between project in
rural areas and urban areas.