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

1982 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3

HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
, J
Jamita Ram and Others v. Collector of Kangra


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Shamsher Singh Kanwar
For the Respondents: N/A

1. "Whether a Court to whom a reference under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act has been made can go behind the reference and decide whether the application has been made beyond the period of limitation?" is the question which arises for decision in these revisions. The Supreme Court in Mahammed Hasnuddin v. State of Maharashtra , AIR 1979 SC 404 , has ruled that the Court has the right nay a duty, of satisfying itself that the reference is valid and proper reference. However, Mr. Shamsher Singh Kanwar, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that this judgment is not applicable in this State because of addition of sub-section (3) in S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act (the Act). Before I analyse the law I may briefly refer to the facts of one case since similar facts are involved in other cases.

2. In Civil Revision No.127 of 1981 the petitioner is Jamita Ram. His land was acquired for the construction of Beas Dam at Pong by an award dated 31st January, 1972. The Collector announced the rates of compensation in respect of various categories of lands. The petitioner was present when the Collector announced the award. Since he was not satisfied with this award he made an applicati































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