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

2000 Supreme(Del) 538

ARIJIT PASAYAT, MUKUL MUDGAL, S.K.MAHAJAN
NET RAM – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
ANUSUYA SALWAN, B.P.GUPTA, GITA LUTHRA, PINKY ANAND

Arijit Pasayat

( 1 ) AS the dispute in these twenty two writ petitions is common, this judgment will govern each one of them. While hearing the batch of writ petitions, learned Single Judge felt that" on account of views expressed by two Division Benches and a Single Judge, to which he did not subscribe to avoid uncertainty adjudication by the Full Bench is needed.

( 2 ) THE question is whether direction for grant of interest can be given in respect of the amount of compensation from the date of award till the actual payment @ 15% or 18%, as the case may be. A brief reference to the factual aspect s would suffice. On 23. 6. 1989, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894 (in short, the Act) was issued in respect of large tract of land in the revenue estate of village Kilokari, Nangli Razapur, Khizrabad and Behlopur Khadar for the planned development of Delhi i. e. channalisation of Yamuna river. This was followed by declarations under Sections 6 and 17 (1) of the Act issued on 22. 6. 1990. Ultimately, awards were made by the Land Acquisition Collector (ME) on 19. 6. 1992. Possession of the land was not taken over by the Collector, Land Acquisition in one go hut









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