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

1991 Supreme(Kar) 176

M.RAMA JOIS, K.J.SHETTY
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER – Appellant
Versus
DATTATRAYA NAGESH WADER – Respondent


Advocates:
H.J.Sundar Kumar, Suresh S.Moodalgi

RAMA JOIS, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal presented under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act by the special land acquisition officer, hidkal dam project, hidkal, is a glaring example as to how even when no application seeking reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was made and the award of the land acquisition officer have become final, the claimants manage to get references on applications made after long lapse of time with the connivance of land acquisition officers and how on such lime barred reference applications, awards are being passed overlooking long lapse of time after which references were received, which on the face of it disclose that the reference applications were barred by time.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case, are these: 8 acres 3 guntas of land in sy. No. 66 of majli village of hukeri taluk, was acquired pursuant to a preliminary notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 3-5-1963. After the final notification, the land acquisition officer made an award on 8-3-1968. He awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,000-00 per acre. A reference under Section 18 of the act for enhancement of compensation, was received in the court of the civil judge


























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