Sahara India Commerl. Corp. Ltd. vs State of U. P.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2016 Supreme(SC) 1124

RANJAN GOGOI, N.V.RAMANA
Sahara India Commerl. Corp. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, Mr. Aarohi Bhalla, Mr. Keshav Mohan, Mr. Devashish A. Mehrotra, Mr. Vijay Kumar, Mr. Ankit Singh, Mr. Ram S., Ms. Sujata Kurdukar, Mr. Piyush Choudhary, Mr. Shyam Kumar, Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Mr. Manish K. Bishnoi, Mr. Venkat Poonia, Mr. K.K. Tyagi, Mr. Iftekhar Ahmad, Mr. Anoop Kumar, Mr. Sanjib K. Roy, Mr. P. Narasimhan, Mr. Ramesh P. Bhatt, Mr. S. K. Sinha, Mr. Mahipal Singh, Mr. Ratan Lal, Ms. S. Kashysp, Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Mr. Ajit Sharma, Mr. Udaivir Singh, Ms. Seema Singh, Mr. Vikas Bansode, Mr. Pahlad Singh Sharma, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, Mr. S.S. Shamshery, Mr. Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Mr. Prateek Yadav, Mr. Amit Sharma, Dr. Kailash Chand, Mr. B.S. Choudhary, Ms. Ritu Rastogi, Mr. Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr. Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Ms. Reena Singh, Mr. Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, Ms. Aarti Upadhyay, Ms. Reena Singh, Mr. Devesh Kumar, Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, Mr. P.N. Misra, Mr. Abhishek Kumar Singh, Ms. Archana Singh, Mr. Abhisth Kumar, Mr. Raman Yadav

ORDER :

1. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.

2. The challenge in this bunch of Civil Appeals is against the order of the High Court of Allahabad which had negatived the challenge made by the landowners against acquisition of land for the public purpose, namely, “planned development of Ghaziabad Development Authority for residential colonies”.

3. The notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) (six in numbers) were issued on 16th October, 2004 (five notifications) and 11th November, 2004 (one notification) and published on 22nd October, 2004 (five notifications) and 9th December, 2004 respectively. The urgency clause under Section 17(1) read with Section 17(4) of the Act was invoked and hearing of objections under Section 5A of the Act was dispensed with.

4. There were interim orders passed in the writ petitions directing stay of dispossession. The earliest of such order was dated 22nd May, 2006. No award was passed possibly because of the pendency of the writ petitions and the interim orders passed therein.

5. Contending, inter alia, that the invocation of urgency clause was not justified and that the acquisition

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2016 Supreme(SC) 1124

RANJAN GOGOI, N.V.RAMANASahara India Commerl. Corp. Ltd. – AppellantVersusState of U. P. – Respondent

Cases Referred (2)

RANJAN GOGOI, N.V.RAMANA
Sahara India Commerl. Corp. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent