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

1996 Supreme(SC) 1058

G.B.PATTANAIK, K.RAMASWAMY
Rudradhar R. Trivedi – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent


ORDER

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act ) was published on July 11, 1953. Successive declaration under Section 6 came to be published in the year 1955-56. Thereafter, as many as 40 awards have been passed determining the compensation. In this case notice was issued by the second respondent on May 15, 1963 under Section 9 of the Act pursuant to which the petitioner had filed his objections. Thereafter, the award came to be made on 13.3.1985. He filed writ petition challenging the validity of the notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6. Primary contention raised in the writ petition was that the petitioner had not been given notice under Section 5-A whereas being a sub-lessee, he was an interested person. The High Court was not impressed with the argument. He further contended that there was inordinate delay in passing the award. On that account, notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 were required to be set aside. That contention was also nagatived. The learned single Judge by judgment dated February 16, 1996 dismissed the writ






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