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

1988 Supreme(SC) 269

S.RANGANATHAN, SABYASACHI MUKHARJEE
Raghunath – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent


Advocates:
A.S.BHASME, ANIL GUPTA, Masdokar, V.S.DESAI

Judgment

RANGANATHAN, J.:- We grant special leave and proceed to dispose of the appeal after hearing both counsel.

2. The point raised in the appeal is a very short one. The lands, belonging to the petitioners were among those sought to be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by means of a notification under Section 4 issued on 22nd June, 1982. This was followed up by a declaration under Section 6 dated 15th March, 1983. The petitioners challenged both the notification and the declaration in writ petition No. 947 of 1983 before the High Court. The notification under Section 4 was challenged on the ground of mala fides and the declaration under Section 6 on the short ground that the petitioners objections had not been heard before the making of the declaration. When this writ petition came up for hearing, a statement was made on behalf of the Government that the notification under Section 6 was being withdrawn. On this statement being made, the writ petition was withdrawn and disposed of accordingly. Thereafter the petitioners were heard under Section 5A of the Act and a fresh declaration under Section 6 was issued on 4th April, 1985.

3. Th










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