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

1987 Supreme(All) 486

A.N.VERMA, ALOK KUMAR BASU
MANGAT SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.K.BANERJEE

AMARENDRA NATH VERMA, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners are claiming compensation under Section 17 (3-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. The assertion is that in respect of the disputed plots the State Government issued notices under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. In the said notifications it was also declared that in view of the urgency of the matter the provisions of Section 5-A are being dispensed with. It was further directed in accordance with Section 17 (1) of the Act that because of the urgency the Collector may, on the expiry of fifteen days from the publication of the notice mentioned in Section 9 (1), take possession of the land in dispute needed for the declared public purpose, even though no award had been made. The allegation is that after the aforesaid notices the Collector took possession from the petitioners and indeed some constructions were also started in pursuance thereof. The petitioners were, however, not paid the compensation which was mandatory under Section 17 (3-A) of the Act.

( 2 ) A counter-affidavit has been filed refuting these allegations. The stand taken in the counter-affidavit is that the amount of compensation was in fact offered to the petitio











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