Back
SUNITA AGARWAL, VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT
Kamal Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sunita Agarwal, J.
Table of Contents
| I. | The challenge |
| II. | The arguments of the counsels for the petitioners |
| A. | Judgements relied by the counsels for the petitioners |
| B. | Reliance on similar dispute decided |
| C. | Aid to the above arguments by other counsels in the bunch |
| III. | On factual aspect, arguments of learned counsels for the parties |
| IV. | Argument of the Respondent's counsel |
| V. (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) | Record of the State and counter-affidavits Village Pachokra Village Achheja Bujurg Village Rampur Bangar Village Usmanpur Village Raunija Village Dungarpur Reelka Village Rustampur Village Kadarpur Village Dhanauri |
| VI. A. (a) (b) (c) B. C. D. E. F. | Analysis Nature, scope and ambit of Section 5-A of the Act' 1894 Constitutional Scheme Statutory Scheme The Precedence : Legal Position The procedure for invocation of Urgency Clause under Section 17 (4) Scope of judicial review On Pre-Post Notification Delay On the Apex Court decisions relied by the rival |
The court upheld the legality of invoking urgency provisions in land acquisition for integrated development, emphasizing adherence to judicial precedents.
The court established that land acquired for public purpose cannot be restored to the original owners once possession is taken, regardless of subsequent non-utilization.
The invocation of the urgency clause under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is justified when the government demonstrates a pressing need, and such subjective satisfaction is generally n....
1. The power under Section 17 (4) is an exception to the general rule that the acquisition of property is made after affording an opportunity the person adversely affected to demonstrate that the acq....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for justifying the invocation of the urgency clause under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, the burden of proof on the party ....
The invocation of the urgency provision u/s 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to dispense with the enquiry u/s 5-A of the Act, is not justified in cases where the acquisition is for an indust....
The court established that non-compliance with Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act invalidates acquisition proceedings, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice.
The invocation of urgency provisions in land acquisition must be justified by genuine emergencies; significant delays undermine such claims and violate the right to object.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
