Skip to content


Ramachandra Nago Patil and ors. Vs. Assistant Collector, Thana and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 1417 of 1978
Judge
Reported inAIR1980SC1887; 1980Supp(1)SCC689; 1980(12)LC746(SC)
ActsConstitution of India - Article 133; Land Acquisition Act - Sections 4, 4(1) and 6
AppellantRamachandra Nago Patil and ors.
RespondentAssistant Collector, Thana and ors.
Excerpt:
- sections 8, 21 & 41(2): [dr.arijit pasayat, d.k.jain & dr.mukundakam sharma,jj] recovery of heroin examination of accused - alleged incriminating materials were not put to accused - foundation of prosecution case was confession made by accused before customs authorities - that was also not brought to notice of accused held, acquittal of accused is proper......in the high court challenging the validity of proceedings taken under sections 4 & 6 of the land acquisition act for the acquisition of certain parcels of land which the appellants allege, belong to them. it appears that the lands are sought to be acquired for the benefit of the third respondent m/s. bayer (india) limited. the case of the appellants was that the acquisition was intended mala fide, the object merely being to maintain the possession of the third respondent in the land, which it had entered upon consequent on an agreement with one sitaram babu patil, who in fact, had no right title or interest in the said land. we have examined the record of the case and we find that the notification under section 4(1) of the land acquisition act is dated 3rd july, 1969 and precedes.....
Judgment:

R.S. Pathak, J.

1. This appeal by certificate granted by the High Court of Bombay under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution is directed against the judgment and order dated 16th July, 1969, of the High Court, dismissing on limine a Writ Petition filed by the appellants.

2. The appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the validity of proceedings taken under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act for the acquisition of certain parcels of land which the appellants allege, belong to them. It appears that the lands are sought to be acquired for the benefit of the third respondent M/s. Bayer (India) Limited. The case of the appellants was that the acquisition was intended mala fide, the object merely being to maintain the possession of the third respondent in the land, which it had entered upon consequent on an agreement with one Sitaram Babu Patil, who in fact, had no right title or interest in the said land. We have examined the record of the case and we find that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is dated 3rd July, 1969 and precedes in point of time the agreement said to have been entered between the third respondent and Sitaram Babu Patil. Nothing has been shown to us to establish that the land acquisition proceedings are mala fide in any particular. There is no force in this appeal, It is dismissed, but in the circumstances there is no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //