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

1997 Supreme(SC) 480

G.T.NANAVATI, K.RAMASWAMY
Executive Engineer, Jal Nigam Central Stores Division, U. P. – Appellant
Versus
Suresha Nand Juyal Alias Musa Ram – Respondent


ORDER

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

We have learned counsel on both sides.

2. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, the Act ) was published on May 7, 1986. The notice under Section 5-A was issued and the objections filed on December 17, 1986 were over-ruled after due consideration. Declaration under Section 6 was published on August 25, 1987. After conducting of enquiry, the award came to be made on December 17, 1988. The symbolic possession was taken on the said date. The respondents filed the writ petition on August 19, 1989. The High Court allowed the writ petition by the impugned judgment dated August 31, 1995 in W.P. No. 3354/1988. The question is: whether the procedure followed by the Land Acquisition Officer was vitiated by any error manifest on the face of the record warranting interference by the High Court? Shri Naresh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents, contends that the respondent/tenant has not been given any opportunity at the enquiry under Section 5-A. The land is the only source of livelihood and scheme was temporary. In view of the long lapse of time the purpose of the acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Act no longe






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