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

2001 Supreme(Bom) 690

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, B.P.SINGH, S.RADHAKRISHNAN
Suresh Marutrao Jadhav – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra & another – Respondent


JUDGMENT - B.P. SINGH, C.J.:---The sole question, which arises for consideration in this revision application, is : Whether, to an application made to the Collector under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for a reference to the Court, the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 will apply? The answer to this question depends on whether the Collector, while making, or refusing to make, a reference under section 18(1) of the Act, acts as a Court, and not as a mere Statutory Authority. Having regard to the weight of authorities on this question, it cannot be disputed that the Collector, acting under section 18 of the Act, is not a Court, but the question arises for consideration in view of an amendment of section 18 of the Act by Maharashtra Act No. XXXVIII of 1964, whereby sub-section (3) of section 18 has been added. The moot question, therefore, is as to whether the provision of sub-section (3) makes any difference.

2. The facts of the case may be briefly noticed :

(a) As per the Development Plan, the land belonging to the petitioner was reserved for development of 80 feet wide road. The Ichalkaranji Municipal Council decided to acqui































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