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

1996 Supreme(SC) 1377

G.B.PATTANAIK, K.RAMASWAMY
Arulmighu Lakshminarasimhaswamy Temple – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent


ORDER

Leave granted.

2. On the admitted facts, the approach of both the learned single Judge and of the Division Bench in the writ petition and the W.A. No. 1358/95 indicated in the impugned order made on January 30,1996 cannot be sustained. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on June 4, 1987 acquiring the land in question for the public purpose. After compliance of the notice under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act, and enquiring the award came to be passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on February 7,1990. The possession thereafter was taken on October 30, 1990. The question, therefore, would be; what would be the proper procedure to be adopted, in case of dispute as to the title of the land acquired under the Act? The learned single Judge declared titled to the petitioner in the writ petition and the Division Bench directed civil Court to decide the title. Both views are obviously erroneous in law. The Land Acquisition Officer has to determine the extent of the land, the persons entitled to compensation and the compensation to be determined under Section 23(1) of the Act. If he finds that there is any dispute as to the person entitled to re




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