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

2008 Supreme(All) 2882

S.RAFAT ALAM, SUDHIR AGARWAL
RADHEY SHYAM – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
N.P. Singh and K.K. Singh for the Petitioners; Pradeep Kumar and S.C. for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

By the Court.—Heard Sri N.P. Singh for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Pradeep Kumar, who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 4.

2. The notifications dated 12.3.2008 and 19.11.2008 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) respectively are under challenge in this petition.

3. The State Government has acquired certain land detailed in the aforesaid notifications, copies whereof have been placed on record as Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition, for planned industrial development in District Gautambudh Nagar through Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, which included plots No. 101, 394 and 399 of the petitioners.

4. The notification dated 12.3.2008 published under Section 4 of the Act further states that the Governor being of the opinion that the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act are applicable to the land in question as it is urgently required for the planned industrial development in District Gautambudh Nagar through Greater New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as GNOIDA) and it is as well nec






















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