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

1972 Supreme(Cal) 266

A.K.SEN
SUDHANSU SEKHAR MAITY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.C.Dutt, D.K.Chaudhary, K.P.SINHA, PARIMAL KUMAR DAS GUPTA, S.C.BOSE, SUPROKASH BANERJI

ANIL KUMAR SEN, J.

( 1 ) TWO notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and two consequent declarations under Section 6 of the said Act are the subject-matter of challenge in this Rule.

( 2 ) IT would be necessary to set out the facts in short which are as follows. On May 5, 1959 a notification was issued by the State Government under Section 4 of the said Act. This notification merely recited that some land in the District of Midnapore is likely to be needed for a public purpose viz. , establishment of a subsidiary port at the mouth of Haldia river. This notification further authorised the Engineers of the Commissioners for the port of Calcutta and the Local Officers for the time being engaged on the undertaking to enter upon and survey land and do all further acts required for the proper execution of their work. The notification further laid down the route for the survey through the sixty-eight villages chronologically set out in the said notification. One of such villages is mouja Hatiberia Police Station Sutahata, District Midnapore. This notification was issued in terms of paragraph 13 and in form 2 of the execut
























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