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

1957 Supreme(All) 182

ROY, M.L.CHATURVEDI
S. BARROW – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.N.ROY, HALIMUDDIN, K.L.MISHRA, NAZIRUDDIN

M. L. CHATURVEDI, J.

( 1 ) THE above two are applications under Article 226 of the Constitution. They raise common questions of law and may conveniently be disposed of together.

( 2 ) THE petitioner in both the cases is the same. He owned certain lands in villages Bhilawan and barha in the District ot Luck-now. The Collector of the District decided to requisition ami then to acquire portions of his land in the two villages. The Collector of Lucknow accordingly issued notices under Section 3 of the U. P. Land Acquisition (Rehabilitation of Refugees) Act, 1948, U. P. Act No. 26 of 1948. This Act will hereafter be referred to as the Act. Section 3 of the Act provides that if, in the opinion of the State Government or such other authority as the State Government may appoint in that behalf, it is necessary or expendient to requisition the land for purposes of erection of houses, shops or workshops for the renabitration of the refugees, the State Government or the appointed authority, as the case may be, muy by order requisition any land by serving on the owner and occupier thereof a notice stating that the State Government or the appointing authority has decided to requisition it in pur



























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