RUMA PAL, S.N.BHATTACHARJEE
HIRA GIRDHARDAS MANSATA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL – Respondent
( 1 ) THE appeal had been preferred from a judgment and order dated 6th April 1994 dismissing the writ application in which the writ petitioner challenged a notification issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
( 2 ) ALTHOUGH several points had been raised by the appellant before the learned single Judge only two were pressed in appeal. The first was that the impugned notification had not been served in terms of section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (referred to as the Act) and the second that the impugned notification was defective, in that the public purpose had not been specified.
( 3 ) THE notification under section 4 is dated 31st July 1981. The land sought to be acquired was 0. 0650 Hectare (0. 1607 of an acre) of premises No. 10, Middleton Street, Calcutta (referred to as the premises ). The notification said that the land was likely to be needed "for a public purpose namely for the purpose of construction of office cum residential buildings" at the public expense.
( 4 ) THERE is an endorsement on the office copy of the notification to the following effect:"copy of this notification is hereby forwarded for publication at the following plac
REFERRED TO : Khoobchand v. State of Rajasthan
Syed Hussain Rasul Numa v. Union of India
State of Gujarat v. Panch of Nani Hamans Pole
State of Maharashtra v. Uma Shankar Raja Bhau
Babu Barkya Thakur v. State of Bombay
R.K.Agarwalla v. State of West Bengal
K.M.Chinai v. State of Gujarat
Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor of Delhi
Madhya Pradesh Housing Board v. Md. Safi
Munshi Singh v. Union of India
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.