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

1978 Supreme(AP) 124

Afzal Bee – Appellant
Versus
Special Deputy Collector – Respondent


O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE lands in survey Nos. 46, 56, 57, 59, 60, 355-A, 722, 723, 849 and 8087 have been acquired by the Government. According to the petitioner, she is entitled to a 1/4th share in the lands and, therefore, she is entitled to 1/4th share of the amount of the compensation. She claims to have filed a petition before the Land Acquisition Officer. That was made prior to the award of the amount of compensation. She complains that despite her claim, the Land Acquisition Officer appears to have passed an award in favour of respondents 2, 3 and 6 only. From the counter it is seen that the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award in regard to survey Nos. 46, 57, 59 and 60 only and in regard to the other items he referred the dispute regarding title under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the dispute in regard to survey Nos. 46, 57, 59 and 60 should have also been referred to the Court under S. 30 of the Act. He alleges that the Land Acquisition Officer was not competent to adjudicate upon the question of title in regard to these items. I see no force in this submission.

( 2 ) UNDER Section 11 of the Land Acquisit







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