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

1996 Supreme(SC) 1180

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





























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