Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: the land acquisition punjab amendment act 1969 Year: 1991 Page 1 of about 49 results (0.091 seconds)

Sep 11 1991 (SC)

Bhatinda Improvement Trust Vs. Balwant Singh and Others

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-11-1991

Reported in : AIR1992SC2214; JT1991(6)SC135; (1992)101PLR181; 1991(2)SCALE557; (1991)4SCC368; [1991]3SCR928; 1991(2)LC643(SC)

..... that some of the provisions of the land acquisition act, as referred to in the relevant sections of the said act, are given effect to as amended by the relevant sections of the said act. in these circumstances, it cannot be held that any provisions of the land acquisition act have been incorporated into the said act and the provisions of the land acquisition act which have to be applied, are the ..... and mahindra ltd. v. union of india and anr. : [1979]2scr1038 . in that case it has been pointed out that section 55 of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act, 1969 (referred to hereinafter as the 'mrtp act') provides that any person aggrieved by the order made by the central government or the commission (the monopolies and restrictive trade practices commission) under ..... years from the first publication of the notice under section 36 and on that account it was bad in law. this contention found favour with the learned single judge of punjab and haryana high court who allowed the writ petition and set aside the notification under section 42 which was issued on june 30, 1980. a letters patent appeal preferred ..... h. kania, j.1. leave granted. counsel heard.2. the appellant, bhatinda improvement trust, framed a development scheme under the punjab town improvement act, 1922 (referred to hereinafter as 'the said act'). notices under section 36 of the said act in respect of the said scheme, setting out the particulars referred to in the said section, were published in the daily tribune on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 1991 (HC)

Rattan Singh Vs. Union of India

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Mar-11-1991

Reported in : 1991(21)DRJ113

..... such awards. the supreme court observed as follows: '2.however, in the appeal filed by the claimant, shri k.n. bhat, learned counsel urged that in view of the land acquisition amendment act, 1984, his client is entitled to be paid solarium ' - of 30% of the compensation instead of the 15% to which he had been held entitled by the lower ..... (shortly, 'the parent act') at 15% on the market value of the land computed in accordance wish section 23(1) of the act. the solarium being provided in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. the land acquisition amendment bill, 1982 was ..... punjab (supra) and reiterated and upheld the view expressed in k. kamalajommanniavaru (supra), speaking for the court pathak, ej. held as under : 31. we now come to the merits of the reference. the reference is limited to the interpretation of section 30(2) of the land acquisition (amendment) act of 1984. before the enactment of the amendment act, solarium was provided under section 23(2) of the land acquisition act ..... . the decision in that case does not further the case of the applicants in any manner. in that case award by the collector was made on march 5, 1969 whereas the reference court made the award on may 28.1985. obviously section 23(2) was attracted as the award of the court was made after the commencement of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 22 1991 (SC)

Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Zora Singh and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-22-1991

Reported in : JT1991(4)SC538; (1992)2MLJ42(SC); 1991(2)SCALE1128; (1992)1SCC673; [1991]Supp2SCR478; 1992(1)LC229(SC)

..... as 'the said act') by the land acquisition (amendment) act, 1984, (referred to hereinafter as 'the amendment act of 1984) only a few facts are necessary for the appreciation of the submissions made before us.2. this appeal, arising out of s.l.p. (civil) no. 14297 of 1990 by special leave, is directed against the judgment of a division bench of the punjab and haryana high court ..... upon by the appellants is concerned, we find that in that case the land acquisition officer made his award determining the compensation on march 5, 1969. on a reference under section 18 the civil court made its award on may 28, 1985, that is, even after september 24, 1984, when the amendment act of 1984 came into effect. the view taken by the division bench ..... , 1982. however, on a reference made under section 18 of the said act on december 24, 1973, the civil ..... diu and anr. etc. (supra) the facts were that the notification under section 4 of the said act was published on october 3, 1969, in the government gazette of the government of goa. the notification under section 6 was published on june 10, 1971. the land acquisition officer declared his award on august 2, 1972. all these events undoubtedly occurred prior to april 30 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 11 1991 (HC)

Gorakhpur Development Authority Gorakhpur Vs. District Judge, Gorakhpu ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-11-1991

Reported in : AIR1991All241

..... in neelganga-bai v. state of karnataka : [1990]3scr20 , this was a case from karnataka where by a local amendment, s. 20 of the land acquisition act was amended. as amended by the karnataka amendment act, s. 20 provided that on a reference being made under s. 18 of the act, the court shall send notices to (a) the deputy commissioner, (b) all persons interested in the reference, and ..... of the punjab and haryana high court has considered this conflict and held by a majority, that the principle enunciated in the municipal corporation's case : (1971)3scc821 is the correct one and ought to be followed (vide indo swiss times ltd. v. umrao ). none of the decisions relied upon by the petitioner's counsel deals with proceedings under the land acquisition act, nor ..... : air1981all344 , the bench was of the opinion that in case of such a conflict, the later decision should be followed. this divergence has been considered by a full bench of punjab and haryana high court in m/s. indo swiss times ltd. v. umrao . the majority was of the opinion that in case of a conflict between two decisions of the ..... the question of the quantum compensation.'the court then referred to an earlier decision of its own in sunder lal v. paramsukhdas : [1968]1scr362 and to the decisions of the punjab and haryana, calcutta and madras high courts in hindustan sanitary ware and industries ltd. v. state of haryana , comilla electric supply ltd. v. e.b. bank ltd. : air1939cal669 and kuppuswami .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 25 1991 (HC)

Ganga Saran Vs. Civil Judge, Hapur, Ghaziabad and Others

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-25-1991

Reported in : AIR1991All114

..... earlier later is a consideration which appears to me as hardly relevant.'this decision was followed by the bombay high court in the case of special land acquisition officer v. municipal corporation, air 1988 bombay 9. the majority of judges in the full bench held that if there was a conflict between the ..... awatar v. shiv awatar, air 1980 sc 1575 respectively. in vishesh kumar v. shanti prasad, the supreme court held that s. 115 as amended by u.p. amendment act assigns mutually exclusive jurisdiction to high court and district court and that recognising a revisional power in high court over a revisional order passed by ..... affirmed in two decisions of the supreme court. it would not be reasonable to say thateven though qamaruddin's case does not notice u.p. amendment act and the earlier decision of supreme court approving the full bench decision of this court, it must be deemed to have dissented or departed from earlier ..... follow the judgment which appear to them to state the law accurately and elaborately. we are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the full bench of punjab & haryana high court in the case of m/s indo swiss time limited v. umrao, (air 1981 punj & har 213) (supra) especially when ..... and the high court must follow the judgment which appears it to lay down law elaborately and accurately.8. similar situation arose before a full bench of punjab and haryana high court in the case of m/s indo swiss time limited, dundahera v. umrao, air 1981 punj & har 213. what the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 27 1991 (HC)

Sher Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-27-1991

Reported in : ILR1992Delhi335

..... in the subsequent decision of the supreme court: state of punjab v. mohinder singh, : air1987sc758 . finally amending provisions of the act came up for consideration before a constitution bench of the supreme court in raghubir singh's case. the constitution bench examined earlier conflicting decisions of the supreme court after the amendment of land acquisition act in the year 1984. pathak, c. j. speaking for ..... the supreme court in fillip tiago de gama : (1990)1scc277 . on careful analysis of these judgments we have arrived at the conclusion that all facets of 1984 amendment of the land acquisition act have been interpreted by the supreme court. in this situation there is no scope of interpretation of these provisions by this court. we have to apply the principles laid ..... and fair compensation, solarium and interest to which the appellant is entitled to ?(3) immediately after the amendment in 1984 the supreme court had the occasion to deal with the amended provisions of the act in the case of k. kamalajammannivaru v. the special land acquisition officer, : [1985]2scr914 . the court observed in the said case that awards made by the collector ..... district judge, delhi, appellant sher singh filed the present appeal before this court. the appellant placed reliance on two decisions of this court : chattar singh v. union of india 1969 rfa 92 (1) decided on december 20, 1984 and hukam chand jain v. union of india : 43(1991)dlt221 (2). according to the appellant these decisions squarely cover .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 22 1991 (HC)

G. Swaminatha Mudaliar and ors. Vs. the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-r ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-22-1991

Reported in : (1992)2MLJ203

..... of an order passed by the trial court dismissing an application filed for amendment of the decree. 2. it appears in favour of the petitioners an award was passed by the collector under the land acquisition act for acquisition of his land. dissatisfied with the amount granted by the collector the petitioners filed land acquisition original petition 46 of 1988 in the court for enhancement of compensation. the ..... determining compensation under the act, has to award the same. an omission to award statutory interest is ..... view of this authorities pronouncement of the supreme court there is no gainsaying that the claimants are entitled to interest on solatium.6. now, taking up the question whether the amendment petition is maintainable under section 152, c.p.c., mr.p. peppin fernando, learned counsel for the claimants-petitioners herein submits that when in law the claimants are entitled ..... in jayakrishna mangaraj mohapatra v. state of orissa and anr. : air1976ori203 , and another decision of punjab and haryana in nand ram and ors. v. state of punjab . in the first decision it has been held that,statutory interest provided under section 28 of the land acquisition act is an integral part of the decree to be passed by the court and the court, while .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 22 1991 (HC)

ismail Gulam Mahmad Davji Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Mar-22-1991

Reported in : (1991)2GLR865

..... declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse:provided that in a case where the said declaration has been published before the commencement of the land acquisition (amendment) act, 1894, the award shall be made within a period of two years from such ..... required to make an award within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration under section 6 of the land acquisition act that the land is required for public purpose. the phrase 'the date of publication of the declaration' is given meaning under sub-section (2) of ..... dismissed as learned advocate, who was appearing on behalf of the respondents, had submitted that the decision to issue notification under section 6 of the land acquisition act was taken on 12th august 1984. this also means that the petitioners were aware about section 6 notification.10. in view of the aforesaid facts, ..... that date should not be taken into consideration for holding that the award passed by the land acquisition officer on 2nd november, 1987 is within time. for this purpose, he has relied upon judgment of the punjab and haryana high court in the case of satish kapur v. state of haryana and anr ..... has relied upon the full bench decision of that court in the case of rattan singh and anr. v. the state of punjab and ors. air 1976 punjab and haryana 279 and has held that even a few dayss' delay between the publication of the notification in the gazette and the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 01 1991 (HC)

The Collector, Land Acquisition, Darjeeling Vs. Sudhangsu Sil and Othe ...

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jul-01-1991

Reported in : AIR1992Cal246

..... chandigarh, has held that the provisions of ss. 23 and 28 of the land acquisition act as amended by the land acquisition (amendment) act, 1984 (act no. 68 of 1984) shall be applicable to the instant case. the notification u/s. 4 of the act was made on 24-10-75 and the possession of the main building and the ..... total award of compensation given by the collector is rs. 2,95,255/-.3. the claimants filed an application u/s. 18 of the land acquisition act before the collector and accordingly the collector made a reference to the district judge. after considering the evidence on record the learned district judge allowed ..... prescribed by s. 30(1)(a) of the amending act. sub-section (1)(b) of s. 30 of the amending act ..... of collector's award to the date of his payment. it may be noted that bhag singh overruled kamalajammannaivaru v. special land acquisition officer, : [1985]2scr914 and approved of the opinion expressed in state of punjab v. mohinder singh, : air1987sc758 . but union of india v. raghuvir singh, : [1989]178itr548(sc) has ..... provisions made in s. 30, sub-sections (1)(a) and (b) of the amending act. in that case notification acquiring land of the petitioner was issued in 1967 and the award was passed by the collector in 1969 and therefore, no proceeding was pending before the collector on 30-4-82, the date .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 10 1991 (HC)

Karnataka Power Corporation Employees' Co-operative Housing Society Lt ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jun-10-1991

Reported in : ILR1991KAR2341

..... 6. the sine qua non for acquisition of land is what is known as public purpose. though originally the act did not contain the definition of public purpose or what purpose will constitute public purpose, later on by amending act 68 of 1984, it came to be defined.7. acquisition can be under two parts: ..... [1985]1scr579 .these are the two submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. we will now proceed to consider them.5. the land acquisition act, 1894 is nothing more than a codified legislation embodying the doctrine of eminent domain. it cannot be denied and rather it is settled in law, ..... vii applies. in deciding whether the acquisition is under which of these two parts, the test is, whether the state has contributed for the purpose of acquisition from the public coffer. as a matter of fact, in laying this dictum, in somawanti v. state of punjab, : [1963]2scr774 it was ..... was held to be sufficient contribution to enable the government to acquire under part-ii. it is also settled law that even for a company or society as defined under section 3(e) of the act, acquisition ..... held that though the cost of acquisition was huge when only rs. 100/- was contributed, that .....

Tag this Judgment!

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