G.B.PATTANAIK, K.RAMASWAMY
Ajay Krishan Shinghal – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
ORDER
These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dated October 10, 1978 made in L.P.A. No. 115/75 and batch. The Division Bench consisting of Hon ble Chief Justice T.V.R. Tatachari and Hon ble Justice S. Ranganathan, as they then were, in an elaborate judgment rendered by the later running into 129 pages, considered threadbare two questions of law raised for consideration, namely, the validity of the notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 (for short, the Act ) acquiring an extent of 3470 acres in Naraina village for public purpose, viz., "Planned Development of Delhi" and secondly, whether the substance of the notification under Section 4(1) was published in the locality as envisaged under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act. The learned Judges have upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge and held that the planned development of Delhi is a public purpose and that, therefore, notification was not beset with any vagueness in the likely need of the land for the said purpose. It also held that the substance of the notification was published in the localit
Smt. Somavanti State of Punjab
Smt. Ratni Devi & Anr. v. Chief Commissioner, Delhi & Ors.
Pt. Lila Ram v. The Union of India & Ors.
Ram Chand & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
State of Tamil Nadu Ors. v. L. Krishnan & Ors.
Jai Narian & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
State of U.P. v. Smt. Pista Devi & Ors.
Mahavir & Anr. v. Rural Institute, Amravati & Anr.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.