Back
2000(6) Supreme 242
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Majmudar, Y.K. Sabharwal & Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ.
Sri Prasada Rao Mikkilineni & Ors. -Appellants
versus
State of A.P. & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2150 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21026 of 1997)
Decided on 16-3-2000
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties finally in this appeal.
3. A limited notice was issued at the SLP stage on 10th November, 1997 to the following effect :
"Delay condoned.
Issue notice for final disposal requiring the Respondents to show cause why reference as asked for should not be made."
4. We find that there is a dispute about the title as also regarding computation of appropriate compensation for acquiring the land in question. Hence, this is a fit case where the High Court should have allowed the Writ Petition and should have directed the Land Acquisition Officer to make reference under Section 18 read with Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. Only on this short ground, therefore, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and the Land Acquisition Officer is directed to make a reference, under Section 18 read with Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, to the appropriate Court within eight weeks from the receipt of a copy of this order at his end.
5. Office to send a copy of this order to the Spl. Dy. Collector, Land Acquisition Officer (Central), Hyderabad (A.P.) for necessary action.
6. No costs.
(C.R.) Appeal allowed.
**************
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
