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

1989 Supreme(Del) 223

M.K.CHAWLA, N.N.GOSWAMY
BALBIR SINGH – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.C.JAIN, M.L.Jain, N.S.VASHISHT

M. K. Chawla,j.

( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of C. Ws. 1373-75/89, 1376/89. 1378-79/89, 1377/89, 1112-13/89. 1126/89, 1281/89, 1065-71/89. 2823/88,51/89, 388/89. 907/89,903/89,945/89,965/89, 1008-9/89, 1598/88, 1252-58 89,1250/89. 894/89, 517/89, 518/89. 495/89. 545/89, 569/89, 578/89, 980-88/89,989-992/89. 2602/88, 2601/88, 2842/88, 2841/88. 2840/8u, 2813/88, 2814. /88. 2815/88. 2816/88,2817/88, 1114-1121/89, 1082-83/89, 1081/89, 1072-79/89,1386/89, 1362/89, 1380/89. Proceedings u/s 5a of the Land Acquisition Actright upto the stage of Award relating to villages, namely. Khan Pur, Deoli@ Devii. Tugbiakabad, Khirkee, Neb Sarai, Said-ula Ajaib, Tigri, Shayoorpur, Satbari, Chattar Pur, Raj Pur Khurd, Maidan Ghari, have been quashed by a Division Bench of this Court in Balak Ram Gupta v. U. O. I. C. W. P. 1639/1985 decided on 14/10/1988/l 8/11/1988. Prayer ofthe petitioners is that in spite of that Judgment, the respondents are trying totake possession of the land.

( 2 ) THE Delhi Administration as also the Delhi Development Authorityhave taken up a very fair stand before us. Their contention is that certainland owners have received compensation and as such they should not beallowed

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