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

2003 Supreme(Guj) 279

AKSHAY H.MEHTA, K.R.VYAS
MANSINGHBHAI NAROTTAMBHAI VASAVA – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: AMIT KOTAK, JOY MATHEW, K.M.PATEL, R.VENKATARAMANA

AKSHAY H. MEHTA, J.

( 1 ) AT the stage of admission hearing we have been informed by learned counsels appearing for the parties that the pleadings in this petition are complete and looking to the controversies that are involved in it, the petition is required to be finally decided. Hence, Rule. Mr. Amit Kotak, the Ld. AGP appearing for respondent no. 1 - State and Mr. K. M. Patel, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 - Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation (GMDC) waive service of the rule. The petition is heard fully and now it is being disposed of by this CAV judgment.

( 2 ) THIS petition is filed for claiming reliefs to declare that the acquisition of the petitioners lands without prescribing for an adequate scheme for rehabilitation and resettlement is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14, 19 (1) (d), (e) and 21 read with Articles 39, 39 (b), 39a and 46 of the Constitution of India; and to direct the respondents by issuing appropriate writ, order or direction to take adequate measures to provide the petitioners appropriate site for resettlement and means to rehabilitate them; further that notifications issued u/s. 4 dated 20/11/2000 and u/s. 6 date













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