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

2001 Supreme(SC) 2015

G. B. PATTANAIK, R. P. SETHI, B. P. SINGH
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Raja Mahendragirji – Respondent


ORDER :

1. This appeal by the Union of India on grant of special leave is directed against the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. The question for consideration is : whether on a combined reading of the provisions contained in Section 6(1-A) and Section 7 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), it is possible to hold that the power to acquire the requisitioned property still subsists when a notice in terms of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act had been issued by the appropriate authority on a date when the requisition had not lapsed by operation of law and that was stayed by the High Court on being approached by the noticee invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but the requisition itself lapsed while the writ petition was pending?

2. As it appears, the property in question was under requisition under the provisions of the Defence of India Rules since 1942 and continued to be so under the Act. On 13-2-1987, the Collector, Bombay, who was the competent authority to exercise power under Section 7(1) of the Act, issued notice under 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