SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 52

G.B.PATTANAIK, K.RAMASWAMY
Ghaziabad Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
Jan Kalyan Samiti, Sheopuri, Ghaziabad – Respondent


ORDER

Leave granted.

2. Though notice has been served on the contesting respondents, they have not appeared either in person or through counsel.

3. We have heard Shri O.P. Rana, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. The acquisition of the land by the Ghaziabad Development Authority was initiated by notification of February 25, 1986, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act ); enquiry under Section 5A was dispensed with under Section 17(4) of the Act and the Declaration under Section 6 was made on February 26, 1986. Both the notifications and declaration were simultaneously published on April 10, 1986.The respondents 1 and 2 have filed writ petition No. 7155/86 in the High Court of Allahabad challenging the validity of the notification under Section 4(1) on the ground that local publication as required under Section 4(1) was not made. The exercise of the power under Section 17(4) was also wrongly invoked, as simultaneously notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 could not be published. The High Court accepted the contentions and by impugned order dated November 3, 1987, allowed the writ petition and quashed the notificati









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top