Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: the land acquisition punjab amendment act 1969 Court: chennai Page 1 of about 137 results (0.054 seconds)

Aug 05 2009 (HC)

Dharmalingam, Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary t ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (2009)6MLJ757

..... is not correct inasmuch as in the common counter filed by the second respondent, the district collector, namakkal it has been averred that the acquired land can be reconveyed under section 48-b of land acquisition act (tamil nadu amendment) act, 1996. assuming but not admitting that there is no such factual assertion even then there are various difficulties in accepting the aforesaid contentions. one of ..... constitution, the expression 'public purpose' came to be considered by the hon'ble supreme court in somawanti v. state of punjab : air 1963 sc 151. in the said judgement by referring to the definition in section 3(f) of the land acquisition act, their lordships pointed out that it is an inclusive definition and not a compendious one and therefore, it does not assist ..... v. singhara singh : air 1964 sc 358, p.361;(b) dhananjay reddy v. state of karnataka air 2001 sc 1512, pp. 1518 & 1519;(c) a.k. roy v. state of punjab : air 1986 sc 2160;(d) mayurdhwaj co-op. group housing society ltd. v. p.o. delhi co. : air 1998 sc 2401, p.2415; and(e) chandra kishore jha v. mahabir ..... of which are exercised to promote such public purpose or public business.in para 32 of the judgement, the hon'ble supreme court has referred to somawanti v. state of punjab reported in : air 1963 sc 151 and has extracted para 40 of the aforesaid judgement which reads thus:40. though we are of the opinion that the courts are not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 07 2001 (HC)

Khadi Gramodyog Bhavan Represented by Its Secretary Vs. Hasheeda Begum ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (2001)3MLJ715

..... as second arora case), a constitutional bench of the apex court had occasion to consider the validity of the land acquisition (amendment) act (act 31 of 1961). in the said case the majority of the judges while upholding the validity of the amendment and holding that the said amending act is not in contravention of article 31(1) as well as article 14 of the constitution, while examining ..... respect the apex court held thus:-9. the law on the subject relating to land acquisition whether for a public purpose of for a company is now well settled after the decisions of this court in babu narkya thakur v. state of bombay ; jhandu lal v. state of punjab ( r.l. arora v. state of u.p., and smt. somawanti v. state of ..... punjab, . we may refer to the gist of these decisions as given in arora's case, with respect to the notification under section 6 of the act, whether acquisitions is for a public purpose or for a company:in a case, the notification under section 6 will say that the ..... is to come out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority; see jhandu lal v. state of punjab . in the second place, the declaration under section 6 may be made that land is needed for a company in which case the entire compensation has to be paid by the company. it is clear therefore that where .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 21 1983 (HC)

R. Venkatasubba Reddiar and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Represent ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1984)2MLJ71

..... that it was for the construction of a labour colony under the government sponsored housing scheme for industrial workers and the act, namely, the land acquisition act (punjab amendment) act (ii of 1954) amended section 17 of the act and in the amended section 17(2)(b), the construction of labour colonies under a government sponsored housing scheme had been included in the category of works of 'public utility'. ..... opinion, the high court is right in reaching the conclusion that neither part vii of the land acquisition act nor the company acquisition rules would be attracted. therefore, we are in agreement with the conclusions reached by the high court.29. the only isolated case is state of punjab and ors. v. raja ram and ors. : [1981]2scr712 , which seems to suggest that in ..... disputed that the government is acquiring the properties for the benefit of a house-building co-operative society. cooperative societies are companies within the definition of that term in the land acquisition act and it is accordingly contended that the government is bound to proceed only under part vii relating to companies and not under sections 6 to 37. mr. rajah ayyar ..... purpose. hence even apart from the amended provision of section 17, it is clear on the authorities that the purpose for which the land was being acquired was a public purpose.25. the next of the cases is smt. somawanti arid others v. the state of punjab and ors. : [1963]2scr774 . that was a case in which acquisition was for a factory of a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 19 1999 (HC)

M. Padmavathy, 11, 1st Floor, East Spurtank Road, Chennai-31 and Other ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 1999(2)CTC323

..... waste, in fact reliance was also placed in the judgment reported in dora phalauli v. state of punjab, : [1980]1scr93 . the notification also do hot mention as to whether the land is arable or waste.40. section 17(1) of the land acquisition act, prior to amendment is as follows:'17(1) in case of urgency, whenever the appropriate government so directs, the ..... sub-section (1) take possession of any waste or arable land needed for public purposes or for a company. such land shall thereupon vest absolutely in the government, free from all encumbrances.'41. the land acquisition act was amended in the year 1984 under the amendment act 68 of 1984. after the amendment section 17 of the land acquisition act is as follows:'17. special powers in cases of urgency, ..... in section 9 sub-section (1) take possession of any land needed for public purpose, such land shall thereupon vest absolutely in government, free from all encumbrances.'42. by the amendment act, the words 'waste or arable' had been removed and as such after the introduction of the amendment to the land acquisition act under act 68 of 1984, there is no restriction for invoking the ..... urgency provision of the act with regard to the classification of the land. hence there is no substance in the argument of the counsel for the petitioners.43. for all .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 06 2014 (HC)

Mr.G.Balasubramanian Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu

Court : Chennai

..... that the proceedings initiated against a dead person and the consequential award are, non est in law. material on record discloses that the notification under section 4(1) of the land acquisition act was approved by the government in g.o.ms.no.570, housing & urban development department dated 24.07.1984 and that the same was published in tamilnadu government gazette in ..... requirement of the publication of the notification under section 4(1) in the gazette as well as publication of the substance of the notification in the locality now under the amended act in the newspaper, is mandatory requirement. as the facts are not in controversy, as mentioned in the judgment of the high court, the substance of the notification was not published ..... be dismissed.".22. in ramalingam and others vs. the state of tamil nadu, reported in 2005 (3) ctc1 after considering the decisions in tej kaur and others v. state of punjab and others, reported in 2003 (4) scc485 municipal council, ahmed nagar v. shah hyder beig, reported in air2000sc671 executive engineer, jal nigam central stores division, uttar pradesh v. suresh nand ..... is common knowledge that in some cases the owner/interested person may not cooperate in taking possession of the land. 24. in balmokand khatri educational and industrial trust vs. state of punjab and others, reported in 1996 (4) scc212 referring to larsen and toubro's case (cited supra), at paragraph nos.4 and 5 of the judgment, the supreme court, held as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 19 1973 (HC)

K.A. Kannappa Chetti Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1973)2MLJ212

..... the wider interpretation of the words used in the fifth amendment to the american constitution.69. it is therefore, obvious that the decision of the supreme court was not on the question whether public purpose in part ii of the land acquisition act should or should not be understood in the light ..... of the modern view that public purpose includes a purpose who is beneficial to the community at large or a considerable section, thereof. in fact in smt. somawanti and ors. v. the state of punjab and gujarat petitions ..... own monopoly.59. the next decision referred to was municipal committee, amritsar and anr. v. the state of punjab and ors. : [1969]3scr447 which related to the validity of the punjab cattle fairs (regulation) act (vi of 1968) and the attack was that the provision there violated articles 13, 14, 19 and 31. ..... expressly enacted in section 3 (2) that no other person or authority may conduct a cattle fair at any place in the state of punjab and that the restriction operates only in respect of cattle fairs and not other trades or occupations relating to dealing in cattle. again, at ..... 19(1)(g) is concerned. this was reiterated in rashibai panda v. state of orissa : [1969]3scr374 , vrajlal manilal and co. v. state of madhya pradesh : [1970]1scr400 , and municipal committee, amritsar v. state of punjab : [1969]3scr447 , the cases dealt with the validity of laws creating state monopolies in the state. clause .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 20 1963 (HC)

P. Iya Nadar Vs. State of Madras and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1965Mad50

..... given rise to this appeal--to direct the special tahsildar to desist from proceeding with the proposed acquisition. then the land acquisition act underwent a change. ordinance 3 of 1962 was promulgated on 20-7-1962, effecting temporarily certain amendments to part vii of the act. that was replaced by the amending act 31 of 1962, which came into force on 12-9-1962. the effect of the ..... the share capital of the company; was also held that the acquisition of the land being outside the scope of s. 40 of the act, the provisions of part vii would not apply. in jhandulal v. state of punjab, the supreme court clarified theposition by holding that the essential condition for the acquisition for a public purpose under part ii albeit for a company, would ..... be that the cost of the acquisition should be born wholly or in ..... if the contribution by the government be so insignificant as one anna towards compensation a declaration under s. 6 of the act would be valid. this question recently came up for consideration before the supreme court in somawanti v. state of punjab, where the majority of the learned judges approved of the view taken in the above case on the principle of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 17 2007 (HC)

C. Augustine Jacob Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by Its Secretary, ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 2007(5)CTC210

..... the award was passed. it has been repeatedly held by the supreme court that no writ petition should be entertained after the award under the land acquisition act has been passed - vide tej kaur and ors. v. state of punjab and ors. : [2003]2scr707 ; municipal council, ahmed nagar v. shah hyder beig : air2000sc671 ; executive engineer, jal nigam central stores division, uttar pradesh v. ..... as to the applicability of section 141 of cpc to proceedings under article 226. this has been resolved by the insertion of an explanation to section 141 by the cpc amendment act. 'in this section, the expression 'proceedings' does not include any proceeding under article 226 of the constitution of india'. hence, it is no longer open to contend that the ..... valid. the learned assistant solicitor general appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that as per allocation of business rules, 1961, as amended utpo 14th october 2006, the ministry is empowered to issue notification under the act. the central government, by order dated 27.06.2005 has authorised the deputy secretary to issue notification.the government of india (allocation of ..... the petitioner, which was not challenged, hence, the consequential order under section 3d(1) of the act cannot be questioned. as per the allocation of business rules, 1961, as amended upto october 14th, 2006, the ministry is empowered to issue notification under the act; that the central government, by its order dated 27.06.2005 has authorised the deputy secretary to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 29 2013 (HC)

T.Bhuvaneswari Vs. District Collector Cum District Magistrate of Erode ...

Court : Chennai

..... the rights of owners of private property to their unhindered enjoyment. the supreme court pointed out in dev sharan v. state of u.p., {2011 (4) scc769 that even the land acquisition act, 1894, is ".a pre-constitutional legislation of colonial vintage and is a drastic law, expropriatory in nature".. therefore, any interpretation to such enactments should conform to the constitutional goals and ..... of his grievance, if any. when the board has got ample power to lay the lines for public purpose and in public interest without recourse to the provisions of the land acquisition act, the petitioner has no right to question the same in writ proceedings under article 226 of the constitution. there are no merits warranting interference by the high court. the ..... rights. despite the fact that the right to property is no more a fundamental right after the 44th amendment to the constitution, it is nevertheless a constitutional right under article 300-a. in several decisions, the supreme court has held that to hold property is not only a constitutional ..... , a.abdul farook v. municipal council, perambalur and others [(2009) 15 scc351, hari ram v. jyoti prasad and another [(2011) 2 scc682, jagpal singh and others v. state of punjab and others [air2011sc1123, power grid corporation of india ltd., v. ram naresh singh and others [air2011patna83 and c.ram prakash and another v. power grid corporation of india ltd., and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 29 1974 (HC)

M. Ramachandran and ors. Vs. State of Madras Represented by the Collec ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1974)2MLJ313

..... 51 therein, and not because the award under the land acquisition act is deemed to be a decree as provided under section 26 (2) of the land acquisition act. it must be remembered that sub-section (2) of section 26 of the land acquisition act had been inserted only by the amending act (xix of 1921). this provision so introduced by the amending act says that every award shall be deemed to be ..... pradesh high court in lakshminarayana v. revenue divisional officer : air1968ap348 , which is a case under the requisitioning and acquisition of immovable property act, has taken a similar view. they have dissented from the judgment of the bombay high court, the division bench of the punjab high court and also that of the allahabad high court reported in debi din v. secretary of state ..... : air1939all127 and held that the award passed under the requisitioning and acquisition of immovable property act, 1952, is an order coming within the meaning of section 8 of the ..... court in kanwar jagat v. the punjab state , in respect of an award under the punjab requisitioning and acquisition act, 1953, as well as a division bench of the delhi high court in manglal sen v. union of india a.i.r. 1970 delhi 4, in respect of an award under the re settlement of displaced persons (land acquisition) act, 1948, have taken a similar view .....

Tag this Judgment!


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