Guwahati Court December 2007 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Uttaradeb Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Dec-04-2007
Hrishikesh Roy, J.1. Heard Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T.D. Majumder, Learned Addl. G.A. representing the State respondents.2. The petitioner who is the owner of a plot of land under Khatian No. 2224 (previous C.S. plots No. 925/44916 under Khatian No. 24036) measuring 0'0030 acres, is before this Court to challenge the memorandum dated 7.7.2004 issued by the Land Acquisition Collector, West Tripura, (Annexure-4) whereby the possession of the said land was directed to be taken over and be handed over to the Executive Engineer, Agartala Div. No. III for the purposes of construction of R.C.C. Bridge over river Katakhal near Durga Chowmuhany, Agartala.3. It appears that a notice Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after referred to as the L.A. Act) was issued on 24.8.2000 for acquiring 0'0947 acres of land for construction of a RCC Bridge over river Katakhal. In the said Section 4 Notification, 7 part-plots u...
Prafulla Kr. Kalita Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Dec-03-2007
B.K. Sharma, J.1. Heard Mr. I.A. Talukdar, learned Counsel for the petitioner in the first two writ petitions as well as Mr. N.N. Karmakar, learned Counsel for the petitioner in the third writ petition. I have also heard Mr. M.R. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department. Since the issue raised in the writ petitions is one and the same, the writ petitions have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. In the 1st writ petition, the challenge made is against the order dated 6.7.2001 (Annexure-D) and the order dated 6.5.2003 (Annexure-E). By the 1st order, the upgradation of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher from that of the substantial Grade of Lower Division Assistant (LDA) was withdrawn and by the 2nd order, the post in which the petitioner was upgraded, was filled up by the respondent No. 6 by way of adjustment of his service as Assistant Teacher. Be it stated here that the respondent No. 6 was a dropped teacher as his servic...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›