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

1980 Supreme(AP) 250

ALLADI KUPPUSWAMI, B.P.JEEVAN REDDY
INAMPUDI UMAMAHESWARA RAO – Appellant
Versus
State OF A. P. REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, HYDERABAD – Respondent


JEEVAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners are challenging the validity of a notification issued under section 4 (I) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, as amended by the Andhra pradesh (Amendment) Act, (No. 22) of 1976, on the following grounds, viz. , (i) that, the notification under section 4 (1) was not published in thegazette; (ii) that the substance of the notification was not published in the village, as required by law; and (iii) that, the Andhra Pradesh (Amendment) Act no. 22 of 1976 is unconstitutional and invalid. We may dispose of the first and the third objections in the first instance,

( 2 ) IN the counter-affidavit it is stated that the notification under section 4 (1) has been published in ths Krishna District Gazette, dated 14-4-1979. A copy of the Gazette, found ia the record, has also been placed before us. The first contention, therefore, fails.

( 3 ) SO far as the third contention is concerned, a Full Bench of this court has upheld the constitutionality of the Amendment Act, except in so far as it provides for payment of compensation in instalments in case of acquisition of agricultural lands below the ceiling limit. The third contention also, accordingly, fails.

( 4









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