Back
GOPINATH P.
S. T. SADIQ S/O THAHA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This writ petition has been filed challenging Sections 3A, 6A and 9 of the Kerala Cashew Factories (Acquisition) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 1974 Act) after its amendment by the Kerala Cashew Factories (Acquisition) Amendment Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act, 2015) and the order dated 6.8.2015 issued by the Government of Kerala taking over the Cashew Factory belonging to the petitioner under Section 3A of the 1974 Act. The petitioner also prays for a direction to restore the possession of the Cashew Factory of the petitioner and claims compensation for the illegal acquisition/taking over of the factory.
Facts in brief:
2. The petitioner was the owner of about 2.77 acres of land where a Cashew Factory known as M/s. Rajmohan Cashews Limited was functioning. According to the petitioner, the land/factory was leased out to the aforesaid M/s. Rajmohan Cashews Limited for a period of five years from 05.05.1981. It is stated that the factory and the associated buildings etc. were confined to about 97 cents out of the total extent of 2.77 acres and the remaining land was being used for agricultural purposes. On 02.05.1985, the petitioner leased
The amendments to the Kerala Cashew Factories (Acquisition) Act, 1974 were declared unconstitutional for violating Article 14, as they discriminated against similarly situated factories and undermine....
The court affirmed that land acquisition can be valid if partly funded by the State, satisfying public purpose requirements, regardless of the controlling shareholding of the acquiring corporation.
The State had the legislative power to enact Act 4 of 2010 and the acquisition did not violate the petitioners' constitutional rights.
State legislation cannot provide lesser compensation than that guaranteed under parliamentary law, rendering it repugnant and unconstitutional.
(1) There is presumption about constitutionality of law made by Parliament/State Legislature.(2) Exercise of power in a reasonable manner inheres concept of its exercise within a reasonable time.
The Court upheld the validity of land acquisition notifications, affirming the Government's discretion to dispense with notice under urgency, satisfying public purpose requirements for establishing a....
provisions of 1966 Act are neither repugnant to 2013 Act nor have been impliedly repealed on commencement of 2013 Act. The 1966 Act is a special Act whereas, 2013 Act is a general law. The provisions....
Acquisition of Land – Non passing of award – Lapse of proceedings - provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, is not applicable to an acquisition proceeding initiated under the provisions of the K....
The provisions of S.11A do not apply to emergency acquisitions under S.17 of the Land Acquisition Act, and non-compliance with S.17(3A) does not invalidate the proceedings.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
