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

1996 Supreme(SC) 950

FAIZAN UDDIN, G.B.PATTANAIK, K.RAMASWAMY
Scindia Employees Union – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent


ORDER

We have heard Ms. Indira Jaisingh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) (for short, the Act ) was published on May 17, 1988 acquiring land over which the workshop was situated for public purpose, namely, for the expansion of dockyard for defence purpose. The petitioner had challenged the validity of the said notification and the declaration published under Section 6 on May 25, 1989 on diverse grounds. Subsequently, the award came to be passed on January 15, 1991 and the same also came to be challenged by the petitioners-Union. The main controversy raised by the petitioner is that they are the persons interested within the meaning of Section 3(d) of the Act and in conducting enquiry under Section 5(A), the Land Acquisition Officer had not given any notice under sub-section (2) of Section 5A. Issuance of notice and hearing of it is mandatory and the failure to comply with the mandatory requirement vitiates the declaration published under Section 6 of the Act. We find no force in the contention.

2. The only scope of the enquiry under Section 5A is whether the land sought to be acquired is neede








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