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

2004 Supreme(SC) 577

SHIVARAJ V.PATIL, D.M.DHARMADHIKARI
Union Of India – Appellant
Versus
Krishan Lal Arneja – Respondent


Judgment

Shivaraj V. Patil, J.-Leave granted.

2. In these appeals, common order dated 22.3.2002 passed in Letters Patent Appeals by the Division Bench of High Court of Delhi, is under challenge. The facts leading to the filing of these appeals, in brief, are that:

3. In all, 14 properties including the properties in question in these appeals, were notified for acquisition on 6th March, 1987 under the provisions of Section 4 and Section 17(1) & (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). Earlier these properties were requisitioned by the appellants under the Defence of India Rules. The provisions of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (for short ‘1952 Act’) were going to lapse on 10th March, 1987. These properties were occupied either for offices or for providing residential quarters to the officers. Out of these 14 properties, Banwari Lal and Sons and Shakuntala Gupta had questioned the validity of acquisition proceedings pertaining to property No. 6, Ansari Road, Dariyaganj, New Delhi and property No.2, Underhill Road, Delhi, respectively by filing separate writ petitions. The writ petitions were allowed and acquisition proceedings were























































































































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