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

1988 Supreme(AP) 48

A.SEETHARAM REDDY
MUDUNURI SUHBARAJU – Appellant
Versus
State OF ANDBRA PRADESH, REPTD. BY THE District Collector, WEST GODAVARI AT ELURU – Respondent


A. SEETARAM REDDY, J.

( 1 ) A brief resume of the relevant facts is necessary for adjudicating the issue involved, viz. , whether the principle of constructive res judicata can be pressed into service, so as to prevent the petitioners from raising the point as to whether the declaration under Section 6 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 is not published in accordance with the provisions of law within three years from the date of notification published under Section 4 (1) of ths Land acquisition Act, Sec. 4 (1) notification will have to be quashed.

( 2 ) UNDER Section 4 (1) of the Act, a draft notification, dated 30-4-82 was published in the Gazette. Challenging the same, a Writ Petition (W. P. 3944/82) was filed on 14-6-82. It is pertinent to mention here that pending the Writ petition, there was a stay, but confined only to the taking over possession of the subject matter of acquisition. The rest of the proceedings were however not stayed. Eventually on 31-12-1985, when the writ petition came up for final hearing it was found that Section 4 notification, and Section 6 declaration were published simultaneously, and hence, following the settled decisions of this Court, Section 6 decla






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