M.KATJU, R.S.TRIPATHI
AMAR SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent
( 1 ) THIS writ petition and Writ Petition Nos. 29029, 29033 and 29152 of 2003, are being disposed off by a common judgment.
( 2 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel, and Shri Vinod Misra for noida.
( 3 ) ON 30. 3. 2002, a notification Under Section 4 (1) read with Section 17 (1) of the Land acquisition Act was issued proposing to acquire 779. 55 Acres of land in Village Sadarpur, tahsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar (NOIDA) for the benefit of New Okhla Industrial development Area (hereinafter referred to as the NOIDA ). True copy of the notification is annexure 1. The petitioners have alleged that they have their abadi in that area. It is alleged in para 6 that although one year has passed no notification has been issued Under Section 6 and this shows that there was no urgency. It is also submitted that the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad has issued a letter dated 29. 12. 81 to the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA requesting him not to acquire abadi plots as desired in the order the dated 29. 8. 78. True copy of the said letter dated 29. 12. 81 is Annexure-3. In Para 18 it is stated that the petitioners have their constructions over t
Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor, Delhi
Bai Malimabu v. State of Gujarat
J.P. Bansal v. State of Rajasthan
Ajay Krishan Shinghal and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
G.B. Mahajan v. Jalgaon Municipal Council
Railway Officers Association v. Union of India
Committee of Management v. Gorakhpur University
Amar Nath Om Prakash v. State of Punjab etc.
Municipal Committee v. Hazara Singh
State of U.P. v. Smt. Pist aDevi and Ors.
Tata Cellular v. Union of India
Union of India v. International Trading Co.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.