Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 57 (0.32 seconds)
Hulluraiah vs State Of Karnataka on 3 April, 2025 cites

Gulam Mustafa & Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 18 September, 1975

30. The learned counsel for respondents also submit that once land is acquired, its non-utilization for a specific period does not invalidate the acquisition, which view is supported by a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gulam Mustafa v. State of Maharashtra (1976 1 SCC 800). They argue that landowners cannot challenge the acquisition merely because the land has not been immediately used for its intended purpose. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 210 - V R Iyer - Full Document

V.Chandrasekaran & Anr vs Administrative Officer & Ors on 18 September, 2012

WA NO. 1329 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1330 OF 2006, WA NO. 1789 OF 2006 & WA NO. 1811 OF 2006 the State or the relevant acquiring authority, as established in the case of V. Chandrasekaran v. Administrative Officer (2012 (12) SCC 133). Such vesting is irrevocable, preventing the original owner from seeking reconveyance, especially after public funds have been invested in development. In the present dispute, since the BDA has already taken possession and started civic works, the question of reverting ownership does not arise.
Supreme Court of India Cites 71 - Cited by 259 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next