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

1996 Supreme(All) 1105

R.S.DHAVAN, A.B.SRIVASTAVA
RAVINDRA SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U P – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
VINOD SINHA,

RAVI S. DHAVAN, J.

Land Acquisi tion proceedings are the subject of these proceedings. But the matter is not so simple so as to consider the issues isolated to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The aspects before the Court go beyond ac quisition proceedings. No issue would have been before the Court but far the fact that a planned exercise has beei on for a decade and now will continue in continuity to depressurize Delhi so that i ( does not spew like a volcano and bring an end to itself by a self- indulgent unknowing exer cise to put everything under the sun in Lutyens Delhi where there is no more space left. Thus saving Delhi a on sequential circumstance is a matter n0t uncon nected before this Court. Initially, when writ petitions came to this Court the petitioners did make a passing reference to the National Capital Region. So did the respondents. But, neither the petitioners nor the respondents submitted nor ap plied formally that one very crucial and essential party was conspicuous by its ab sence and be added to the proceedings. Eliminating or not arraying this particular party would have been fatal to the proceedings. This party is the National Capital Region Planning Board w
























































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