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

1994 Supreme(Guj) 332

A.N.DIVECHA, B.N.KIRPAL, R.K.ABICHANDANI
KANCHANBHAI JHAVERBHAI DESAI – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: J.M.PATEL, N.A.PANDYA, N.D.NANAVATI, R.M.CHHAYA

B. N. KIRPAL, J.

( 1 ) IN this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of india, the main prayer of the petitioner is that the respondents had taken possession of the land belonging to them after the same has been acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), but no compensation was given with regard to the crops which were standing thereon. The claim of the petitioners, is that an appropriate writ should be issued to the respondents to make payment in respect thereof. In supprot of this claim, the petitioners relied on Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Motibhai Paragbhai and ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. , [1994 (2)] XXXV (2) GLR 1105.

( 2 ) WHEN this petition came up for preliminary hearing rule was issued. At that time, the attention of the Division Bench was drawn to the said judgment in motibhai Paragbhais case. The Bench, however, was of the opinion that as the attention of the Court in Motibhai Paragbhais case has not been drawn to the provisions of Sec. 12 of the Act and further that the attention has also not been drawn to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the Addl. Special L



















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