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

1989 Supreme(Ori) 50

K.P.MOHAPATRA, G.B.PATTANAIK
M. K. JHUNJHUNWALA – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.K.MOHANTY, G.A.R.DORA, INDRAJIT ROY

G. B. PATNAIK, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners Whose lands have been notified for the purpose of acquisition under Section 4 (1) as well as under sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the "act") have approached this Court for quashing of the said two notifications which have been annexed as Annexures-1 and 1/a respectively to the writ application.

( 2 ) THE Government in the Revenue Department had issued the notification (Annexure-1) dated 26th of March, 1984, notifying that 3,926 acres of land as described in the schedule was required for a public purpose namely "development of New Capital in Mouza Laxmisagar" and accordingly the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act had been made, Along with the said notification, Government also in exercise of powers under sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 17 of the Act issued another notification on the same date i. e. on 26th March, 1984, directing that the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act shall not apply in respect of the lands specified in the schedule of the notification. The petitioners assail the validity of the aforesaid two notifications inter alia on the grounds that (i) t










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