INDIRA BANERJEE, S. RAVINDRA BHAT
B. K. RAVICHANDRA – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
JUDGMENT
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
This appeal by special leave questions a judgment of the Karnataka High Court1[Dated 11.01.2008 in W.P. 8340/2006]. The High Court rejected the appellants' claim to direct the respondent (hereafter called "the Union") to vacate their lands, leaving it open to the latter to initiate appropriate proceedings for acquisition of certain lands (which belonged to the appellants).
2. Parliament, in exercise of the powers conferred upon the Union, enacted the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable properties Act, 1952 (hereafter called "the Requisitioning Act"). It was brought into force on 15.03.1952. 2[By virtue of Section 1(3), the Act was initially temporary, and to remain in force for six years. The object of the Act was to enable the Union to requisition or acquire immovable property if the competent authority was of the opinion that any property was necessary for a public purpose. By Section 1(3), the Requisitioning Act was to be in force for six years. Section 3 clothed the Union with the power to requisition properties for any public purpose; Sec
Special Military Estates Officer v. Munivenkataramiah and Anr. 1990 (1) SCR 4 – Referred [Para 9]
Union of India v B.M. Krishnamurthy 1995 (4) KarLJ 607 – Referred [Para 10]
Vidya Devi v. State of H.P.2020 (2) SCC 569 – Referred [Para 15]
State of Haryana v Mukesh Kumar
Grahak Sanstha Manch v. State of Maharashtra
Rajendra Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.
Delhi Airtech Services Pvt Ltd v. State of U.P.
State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata
K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka
T. Vijayalakshmi v. Town Planning Member
Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. (supra); Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd.
Shrirampur Municipal Council v. Satyabhamabai Bhimaji Dawkher
Shrirampur Municipal Council v. Satyabhamabai Bhimaji Dawkher
Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd.
Ramchandra Ravindra Waghmare v. Indore Municipal Corporation
D.B. Basnett v. Land Acquisition Officer
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Corpn. of Calcutta
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.