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

1982 Supreme(All) 630

SATISHCHANDRA, K. C. AGRAWAL
Rajbali – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
R.K. Jain, for Petitioners; Standing Counsel and V.N. Khare, for Opposite Parties.

Judgement

K. C. AGARWAL, J. :- These two petitions filed under Art.226 of the Constitution challenge the validity of the notifications under Ss.4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 26th Sept. 1981, and 5th Oct, 1981, respectively. These notifications had been issued acquiring 219.49 acres land of village Khalilabad, District Basti, for the purpose of planned Industrial Development of district Basti through U.P. State Industrial Corporation Limited. Kanpur.

2. Challenging the validity of the aforesaid notifications learned Counsel for the petitioner first urged that as the purpose for which the acquisition was intended had not been clearly specified, the notifications were invalid. We do not agree with this submission. The notifications have clearly stated the purpose of acquisition, that is, the planned Industrial Development of district Basti. It was not necessary to mention in these notifications the various industries which were intended to be set up. It could not be possible at the time of issuing of the notifications under Ss.4 and 6 to specify area which would be assigned to each individual industrialist for setting up a particular industry in which he may be interested. T


















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