Back
JAY SENGUPTA
Anjali Devi Chaudhry – Appellant
Versus
First Land Acquisition Collector – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
JAY SENGUPTA, J.
1. This is an application challenging the acquisition of premises No. 68, Golf Club Road, (now known as, Uday Shankar Sarani), which was sought to be acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted as follows. The petitioner was the owner of 68, Uday Shankar Sarani. The petitioner got the ownership of the said land by way of purchase. The property had area of 6 cottahs 15 chittacks and 43 sq. ft. (468.05 sq. meters). The premises No. 70 Uday Shankar Sarani, was just contiguous to premises No. 68, Uday Shankar Sarani. Smt. Kamala Banerjee was the owner of 70, Uday Shankar Sarani, having an area 32 sq. meters. The balance 436.10 sq. meter of 70, Uday Shankar Sarani, Kolkata stood vested to the State and after vesting the said area of 436.10 sq. meter was settled in favour of Shrutinandan, the respondent No. 3. Shrutinandan was a society registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961. Pandit Ajoy Chakraborty, the respondent No. 4, used to run the said society alongwith its other members. After getting the said land, the authority of Shrutinandan started to make construction in the
The judgment establishes the importance of satisfying the public purpose requirement under Section 3(f) and the need for compliance with the procedural safeguards of Section 5A in land acquisition pr....
The court upheld that land acquisition for public purpose, as defined under the Land Acquisition Act, was valid despite petitioners' claims of private benefit and procedural violations.
Even though there is no period of limitation for filing petitions under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner should approach the Court without loss of time and if there is delay, t....
Supreme Court has further struck a note of caution that though Courts are generally not entitled to go behind declaration of Government to effect that acquisition is for "public purpose", an exercise....
The court emphasized the importance of procedural compliance and the requirement for acquisitions to serve a 'public purpose' as defined under the Act of 2013.
The Court upheld the validity of land acquisition notifications, affirming the Government's discretion to dispense with notice under urgency, satisfying public purpose requirements for establishing a....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
