Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.25 seconds)Section 4 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Oxford English School vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu & ... on 2 August, 1995
After so holding, the Court held that the view expressed in Narasimhaiah case (supra) and Nanjudaiah case (supra) is not correct and was overruled while that expressed in A.S. Naidu case and Oxford case was affirmed:
N. Narasimhaiah & Ors. Etc vs State Of Karnataka & Ors.Union Of India & ... on 17 January, 1996
After so holding, the Court held that the view expressed in Narasimhaiah case (supra) and Nanjudaiah case (supra) is not correct and was overruled while that expressed in A.S. Naidu case and Oxford case was affirmed:
Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
K. Chinnathambi Gounder And Anr. vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu, ... on 22 June, 1979
Relying on the judgment in K. Chinnathambi Gounder and Anr. (supra), the learned Division Bench noticed that the second declaration made beyond a period of three years, could not be held to be invalid and there was no necessity that a second declaration should be made within the period of three years from the date of the notification under Section 4. The Court held that the first proviso to Section 6(1) refers only to the declaration under Section 6 and does not say that effect to declaration shall be made within three years. Nor does the section say that in the event of the declaration being quashed by the Court, the subsequent declaration should be made within three years. From the judgment of the learned Division Bench of this Court, which followed the judgment of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court, it would appear, that in so far as the fresh declaration under Section 6, the time prescribed to make a fresh declaration, will not apply.
The Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1962
Anna Shankar Walvekar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 7 November, 1996
The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Anna Shankar Walvekar (supra) stands overruled.
P.Chinnanna vs State Of A.P on 8 August, 1994
In other words, the Court did not accept the law as laid down by the Full Bench of the Madras High Court, that for the second declaration, no time limit is prescribed. The Court, considering Section 6, held, that a declaration has to be made within the time prescribed, but in a case where a fresh declaration has to be made on account of the order of the Court, then a fresh period would commence from the date of receipt of the order of the Court by the Land Acquisition Officer, to make the declaration in terms of the period prescribed under Section 6.