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

2003 Supreme(SC) 325

DORAISWAMY RAJU, SHIVARAJ V.PATIL
Ved Prakash – Appellant
Versus
Ministry of Industry, Lucknow – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Shivaraj V. Patil, J.-About 496 acres of land including that of the appellants were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act ). Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 were issued for the purpose of planned development of district Ghaziabad (now district Gautam Budh Nagar) through NOIDA on 5-1-1991 and 7-1-1992 respectively. The appellants challenged those notifications by filing writ petitions in the High Court which were dismissed. They filed appeals by Special Leave to this Court challenging the order of the High Court dismissing the writ petitions. This Court in Om Prakash & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. [(1998) 6 SCC 1) disposed of those appeals giving certain directions. Although several contentions were raised before this Court challenging the acquisition proceedings, finally this Court has made observations and gave certain directions in paras 31 and 32, which read as under:-

"31. Now remains the moot question as to what proper orders can be passed in the present proceedings in the light of our findings on the aforesaid points. We have already noted that the real and the only contention of the appellants for effectively challen



























































































































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