Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.33 seconds)Article 300 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 4 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
State Of Haryana vs Mukesh Kumar & Ors on 30 September, 2011
12.10. This Court in State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar held
that the right to property is now considered to be not only a
constitutional or statutory right, but also a human right. Human
rights have been considered in the realm of individual rights
::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2023 20:35:01 :::CIS
9
such as right to shelter, livelihood, health, employment, etc.
Human rights have gained a multifaceted dimension."
Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. Thr.Poa Holder vs M.I.D.C. & Ors on 2 November, 2012
In Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. v. M.I.D.C. & Ors., this Court while
dealing with a similar fact situation, held as follows :
Article 31 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Rajiv Jassi on 6 May, 2016
9. Though at this stage, learned Additional Advocate General,
while making this court peruse judgment dated 24.2.2023 passed by
Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1278 of 2023, titled State of
Himachal Pradesh and Ors v. Rajiv and others, attempted to argue
that the relief as sought in the instant petition, cannot be allowed on the
ground of delay and laches, but having perused judgment supra, in its
entirety, this court finds that it never came to be held in the aforesaid
judgment that the claim of the land owner after an inordinate delay,
::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2023 20:35:01 :::CIS
11
cannot be considered, rather, in the aforesaid case, claimants were not
held entitled to the interest under the Land Acquisition Act from the
date of Notification under S.4 till the filing of the writ petition. Since, no
.
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Gita Ram on 8 September, 2000
At this stage, it would be apt to take note of judgment passed by
Full Bench of this Court in LPA No. 33 of 2021 alongwith Execution
Petition No. 17 of 2019, titled State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sita
Ram, wherein reference made to Full Bench came to be answered in
the affirmative that, "a person, whose land has been utilized for
construction of road under PMGSY is entitled for compensation, unless
it is proved to the satisfaction of the court, that land was donated or
given by the land owner willingly, of his own free will and consent, for
construction of such road". It would be apt to take note of following
paras of the aforesaid judgment: