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

1995 Supreme(SC) 1339

B.N.KIRPAL, FAIZAN UDDIN, K.RAMASWAMY
Chameli Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Ashok K.Srivastava, N.M.GHATATE, P.K.JAIN, R.K.JAIN

Judgement Key Points

The legal principle that the State's obligation under Part III of the Constitution is an obligation of progressive realization and reasonable effort, rather than an absolute guarantee, was articulated in the context of recognizing that the State may face resource constraints, administrative challenges, or ground realities that hinder the immediate fulfillment of constitutional rights. Such failures to promptly realize these rights are considered violations only if they are systemic, deliberate, and indicative of policy indifference. Conversely, when delays or shortcomings are due to temporary breakdowns or operational limitations, they do not constitute a constitutional violation.


JUDGMENT

K. RAMASWAMY, J. - Leave granted.

CA No. 12122 of 1995 @ SLP (C) No. 4896 of 1993

2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated 5-2-1993 by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 15377 of 1983. The appellants are owners of the lands in Plot No. 16 of an extent of 5 bighas, 6 biswas and 14 biswas respectively in Village Bairam Nagar, Pargana Nahtaur, Tahsil Dhampur, District Bijnore. These lands along with other lands were notified by publication in the State Gazette under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act") on 23-7-1983 and the declaration under Section 6 was also published simultaneously dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5-A. The appellants challenged the validity of the notification under Section 4(1) and the exercise of the power given under Section 17(1) read with Section 17(4) dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5-A. Three contentions were raised and negatived by the Division Bench. The first contention was that since the lands are not waste or arable lands, notification under Section 17(4) in invalid. Secondly, it was contended that dispensing with the inquiry unde







































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