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

1963 Supreme(Online)(All) 37

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
B. Dayal, J. N. Takru, JJ
State Government – Appellant
Versus
Property Owner – Respondent


1. The following question has been referred to a Full Bench by two of us :
"Whether the District Judge, in a reference under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act , can go into a question that the application for reference was not made to the Collector within the time prescribed in S.18 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act : and if so, can it refuse to entertain the reference if it finds it to be time - barred?"
The question arises in an appeal from a decree passed by a District Judge on a reference made to him under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act . The respondent, who was the owner of the land acquired, claimed a certain amount of compensation in proceedings before the Collector under S.11. On 23-11-1950 the Collector decided that the owners of the land be given compensation of Rs.20,000/- and odd and that an award be prepared accordingly. The respondent was not present when the decision was given and it is not known on what date the award was actually prepared by the Collector and signed by him, if at all. Under S.11 a Collector is required to inquire into an objection by an owner of the land acquired and to "make an award under his hand of xx xx the compensation which in his opinion s

































































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