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

1996 Supreme(SC) 1498

FAIZAN UDDIN, G.B.PATTANAIK, K.RAMASWAMY
Mohd. Ali – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent


ORDER

These appeals by special leave arise from the order of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court made on May 20, 1976 in W.P. Nos. 792/75 and 5032/75 and batch. The appellant challenged, along with yet other batch, the validity of the notification published under Section 4(1) on October 12, 1974 and declaration under Section 6 dated September 28, 1974 contending that the declaration under Section 6 could not be made until the notification under Section 4(1) was published in accordance with law. Therefore, the notification is bad in law. The High Court noted, as a fact, that the notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6 were simultaneously published on October 12, 1974. There is no bar on the Government making the order that before publication, of Section 4(1) declaration under Section 6 should also be published. It is not in dispute that the State had in exercise of its power of eminent domain under Section 17(4) of the Act, dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5A. It is settled law that simultaneous publication of the notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6 was valid in law prior to the coming into force of the Am


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