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

1992 Supreme(All) 331

S.C.MATHUR, R.K.AGRAWAL
RAM JIYAWAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
C.S.Chauhan, O.P.Pal

S. C. MATHUR, J.

( 1 ) THESE petitions arise from proceedings to acquire land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), for short Act. Common questions of law have been raised and, therefore, the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The facts stated in the judgment have been taken from Writ Petition No. 545 of 1991 in which short counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer.

( 2 ) THE facts generally stated in these petitions are as follows:-notification under Section 4 was issued and thereafter declaration under Section 6 was made. Section 17 was applied and possession of the notified land was taken by the Collector before publication of the award. At the time of taking possession there were trees and standing crops on the land and they were damaged but no compensation was paid for such damage at the time possession was taken and compensation for such damage was not included even in the final award. Notice was issued under Section 9 (1) and the petitioners preferred claims for compensation. No date was fixed for hearing of the claims and the award was published in the absence of the


























































































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