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

2003 Supreme(Del) 411

A.K.SIKRI, B.C.PATEL
NAGINCHAND GODHA – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
GITA LUTHRA, GITA MITTAL, JHUM JHUM SARKAR, Kianika Agnihotri, N.S.VASHISHT, Shobhana Takiar

B. C. Patel, C. J.

( 1 ). Petitioner has approached this Court by filing this petition, inter alia, praying that by issuance of appropriate writ, the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the act ) bearing no. F. 15 (III) / 59/lsg and notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 12. 11. 1968 bearing No. F. 4 (98)/65-Landh be quashed and set aside and the respondent be directed to denotify the land in question.

( 2 ). After the issuance of the notifications, as aforesaid, award has been made which was challenged before this Court by filing civil writ petition No. 1589/86. This petition was dismissed. It may be noted that the petitioner had no right or title to file the petition, as the land at the relevant time stood in the name of his father and the petition was also filed by his father. The contention raised before the Court is that the application under Section 48 (1) of the Act is made to the Lt. Governor for denotifying the land in question. On notice being issued, Suresh P. Padhy has filed an affidavit on behalf of the DDA and has pointed out as under:

"6. That these Khasra numbers were the subject matter of CWP 1539 of 198























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