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

2004 Supreme(SC) 1109

SHIVARAJ V.PATIL, B.N.SRIKRISHNA
Defence Enclave Residents Society – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Srikrishna, J.-These four writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution, though slightly differing on facts, raise the same issue of law and, therefore, can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment.

Writ Petition No. 344 of 2000:

2. This writ petition is by a society of the residents of a colony known as Defence Enclave in Meerut. The respondents to the writ petition are the State of U.P., the Meerut Development Authority and the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Meerut, U.P.

3. The second respondent, Meerut Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the authority ) is a statutory authority constituted under Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The objectives of the authority are securing the development of the development area according to plan and for that purpose the authority has the power to acquire, hold, manage and dispose of land and other property, to carry out building, engineering, mining and other operations, to execute works in connection thereto for such development and for purposes incidental thereto. Under Section 17 of the Act, the State Government is empowered t










































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