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

1964 Supreme(Bom) 62

S.M.SIKRI, RAGHUBAR DAYAL, M.HIDAYATULLAH, K.SUBBA RAO, K.N.WANCHOO
N. B. JEEJEEBHOY – Appellant
Versus
ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, THANA PRANT, THANA – Respondent


JUDGMENT

SUBBA RAO J. -The two appeals are directed against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay modifying those of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thana, in a reference arising out of land acquisition proceedings.

2. On May 28, 1948, the Government of Bombay issued a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:, notifying that certain lands belonging to the appellant, along with lands belonging to others, were likely to be needed for the Government :Housing Scheme, a public purpose. Notifications under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued on July 14, 1949, August 1, 1919 and August 11, 1919. On December 31, 1949, possession of the lands so notified was taken under section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act. the Land Acquisition Officer classified the said lands into six groups based upon certain criteria. Some of the lands of the appellant fell in group Nos. 4 and 5, and his khajan lands fell in group No.6. He valued the khajan lands at Rs. 500 per acre, i. e., at anna 1 pies 7 1/2 per sq. yard, and the lands in group No.4 at Rs. 1 -6 -0 per sq. yard and those in group No. 0 at Rs. 1 -4•0 per sq. yard. Though the appe


























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