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

2004 Supreme(All) 689

M.KATJU, R.S.TRIPATHI
ASHOK KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
K.Dubey, P.N.TRIPATHI

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

( 2 ) THIS is yet another case which has come up before us where the land of the petitioners has been taken over by the Government without following the procedure of the Land Acquisition Act or,any other statutory enactment.

( 3 ) ARTICLE 300-A of the Constitution states : "no person shall be deprived of his property saved by authority of law". The petitioners have alleged in paragraph 3 of the writ petition that they are bhumidhars of the land in question. In paragraph 2 of the writ petition it has been stated that the land in question has not been acquired or requisitioned by the respondents under the provisions of the Land Acquisition act or the U. P. Rural Development (Requisitioning of Land) Act, 1947 and no notification was issued under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act or other enactment. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition it is alleged that similar type of action of taking possession of the land of agriculturists without acquiring the land under the Land acquisition Act or requisitioning it under the u. P. Rural Development (Requisitioning of land) Act had been taken in the proof by the respondents. This fact has been a










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