Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC497; 1996(4)KarLJ331; [1995]Supp4SCR663
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. Civil Appeal Nos. 1865-66, 1868-70 of 1992.2. These appeals are preferred by the State of Tamil Nadu, Tamil Nadu Housing Board and others against the judgment of the Madras High Court allowing a batch of writ petitions and quashing three notifications issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The three notifications concerned herein are the notifications dated May 8,1975, August 29, 1975 and February 19, 1975. The writ petitions have been allowed relying mainly upon the earlier decision of that Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Mohammed Yousef and Ors. : (1992)2MLJ149 which has since been affirmed by this Court in State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. v. A. Mohammed Yousef and Ors. : [1991]3SCR375 and the decision of this Court in Munshi Singh v. Union of India : [1973]1SCR973 .3. The first and the main ground assigned by the High Court for quashing the said notifications is that the public purpose stated therein is vague and that on the date of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996AIHC497; JT1995(8)SC1; 1995(6)SCALE221; (1996)1SCC250
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.Civil Appeal Nos. 1865 - 66/1868 - 70 of 19921. These appeals are preferred by the State of Tamil Nadu, Tamil Nadu Housing Board and others against the judgment of the Madras High Court allowing a batch of writ petitions and quashing three notifications issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The three notifications concerned herein are the notifications dated May 8, 1975, August 29, 1975 and February 19, 1975. The writ petitions have been allowed relying mainly upon the earlier decision of that Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Mohammed Yousef and Ors. : (1992)2MLJ149 [which has since been affirmed by this Court in State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. v. A. Mohammed Yousef and Ors. : [1991]3SCR375 ] and the decision of this Court in Munshi Singh v. Union of India : [1973]1SCR973 .2. The first and the main ground assigned by the High Court for quashing the said notifications is that the public purpose stated therein is vague and that on the date of is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1967)ILLJ252Mad
ORDERKailasam, J.1. In all these throe writ petitions the main question that is raised is whether the order of the Madras State Electricity Board directing the petitioners to retire at the age of 55 is Illegal and unsustainable in law. As the main question involved in all these three petitions is the same, these three writ petitions may be dealt with together.2. The Madras State Electricity Board is a body corporate constituted under the provisions of the Electricity Supply Act of 1948 (Central Act) and was incorporated with effect from 1 July 1957. The Madras State Electricity Board is empowered to frame regulations in regard to the duties of officers and servants of the Board and their salaries, allowances and other conditions of service by virtue of Section 79(c) of the Act. The Board has not framed any regulations, but by way of transitory regulations, it directed that the provisions of Fundamental Rules which govern the service conditions in regard to certain matters of Government...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable and heard finally with the consent of Shri Kaptan, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Kalangiwal, learned Advocate for the petitioners, Shri Kale, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 6 and Shri Kothari, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 4. 2. The petitioner in this writ petition has approached for declaration that award passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 1/65/2005-2006, Mouza Khutala, District Chandrapur, on 15.03.2008 is illegal and void. The other prayer is to declare that after purchase notes issued under Section 49, the land acquisition proceedings could not have been initiated at all. 3. This Court has heard the parties on 28.10.2014 and passed the following order: Heard for some time. The question is why Legislature has made two provisions in Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 i.e. Section 49 and section 127. Whether the recourse to section 49 is permissible only to get land removed from reser...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 112(2004)DLT420; 2004(75)DRJ739
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. These writ petitions raise an important question of law having far-reaching consequences. The issue arises in relation to the acquisition of land for a public purpose, namely, Prem Nagar Station, which is part of Mass Rapid Transit System (in short 'the MRTS'), a Project undertaken by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (in short 'the DMRC'). There is no denying the fact that in Delhi land can be acquired by the Government, for public purpose, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the LA Act'). However, the Parliament, way back in the year 1978, also enacted another Legislation, namely, the Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Metro Railways Act') and, this Act also contains the provisions for acquisition of land required for specific purpose viz. for the construction of Metro Railways or other works connected therewith. In the present case, land is acquired under the provisions of the LA Act for MR...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.9363 OF2011Balasaheb Arjun Torbole & Ors. .....Appellants Versus The Administrator & Divisional Commissioner & Ors. .....Respondents W I T H C.A.No.9147 of 2011 JUDGMENT SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.These civil appeals are directed against judgment of Bombay High Court dated 31.08.2010 in W.P.(L) No.1915 of 2010 and dated 10.08.2010 in W.P.No.316 of 2010 respectively whereby the writ petitions preferred by the appellants were dismissed. For the sake of brevity facts have been taken from C.A.No.9363 of 2011. The High Court negatived all the five contentions advanced on behalf of the appellants and upheld the order dated 17.04.2010 passed by the High Powered Committee of the Govt. of Maharashtra dismissing Appeal No.62 of 2010 preferred by the appellants to challenge the sanction of a scheme by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority of lands bearing CTS No.106, 106/1 to 5, 107/1 to 9, 108(Part), 111(Part), 111/1 to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC304; (1978)4SCC214; [1979]1SCR765; 1978(10)LC776(SC)
Fazal Ali, J.1. These appeals have been brought by certificate of fitness granted by the Bombay High Court against the order of the High Court in S.C.A. No. 2149 of 1968 dated 12th March, 1969. By an order dated 12-7-1970 this Court directed the four appeals to be consolidated because the points involved were the same. The appeals have been filed by the Municipal Corporation for the City of Poona (hereinafter called the Corporation) against whom a writ filed before the Bombay High Court was allowed and the orders demanding the octroi duty from the respondents were quashed.2. The facts of the case insofar as they are pertinent to the decision of the points in issue lie within a very narrow compass. The entire case turns upon the interpretation of some of the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act 1949 (hereinafter called the Act) and certain notifications issued thereunder. It appears that under Section 127(1) of the Act the Corporation has got the power to impose...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2000KAR3527; 2000(6)KarLJ381
ORDER ON COURT FEE1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 10-2-2000, passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in LAC No. 7 of 1998. The claimants in the said proceedings were owners of certain lands acquired under preliminary and final notifications issue under Section 28(1) and 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short, 'KIAD Act'). The respondent in the said Reference Proceedings [LAC 7 of 1998] was 'State, by Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB'.2. The Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the market value of the land at Rs. 70,000.00 per acre. The Reference Court had fixed the market value of the land as Rs. 3.40 lakhs per acre. Feeling aggrieved, this appeal has been filed by the 'Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board'.3. The appellant has not paid any Court fee on the appeal. The appellant contends that no Court fee is payable on two grounds. The first i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
See v. City of Seattle - 387 U.S. 541 (1967) U.S. Supreme Court See v. City of Seattle, 387 U.S. 541 (1967) See v. City of Seattle No. 180 Argued February 15, 1967 Decided June 5, 1967 387 U.S. 541 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON Syllabus A suitable warrant procedure held required by the Fourth Amendment to effect unconsented administrative entry and inspection of private commercial premises. Cf. Camara v. Municipal Court, ante, p. 387 U. S. 523 . Pp. 387 U. S. 542 -546. 67 Wash.2d 475, 408 P.2d 262, reversed. MR. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court. Appellant seeks reversal of his conviction for refusing to permit a representative of the City of Seattle Fire Department to enter and inspect appellant's locked commercial warehouse without a warrant and without probable cause to believe that a violation of any municipal ordinance existed therein. The inspection was conducted as part of a routine, periodic city-wide canvass to obtain complian...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) OVERVIEW AND FACTUAL ASPECTS 1. A very important issue is raised in this Public Interest Litigation. The issue is regarding the failure on the part of the State Government and the Mumbai Municipal Corporation in taking action of demolition of several illegal religious structures/shrines. No religion encourages illegality. No religion preaches that worship or prayer should be offered in illegally constructed place of religion. The material on record shows that there are large number of illegal religious structures constructed in the State. The illegal shrines have been erected by the persons belonging to all religions, and therefore, we make it clear that we are dealing with the illegally constructed places of religion/shrines of all the religions and sects. 2. The Petitioners had earlier filed a Public Interest Litigation being PIL Writ Petition No.2063 of 2002 for inviting attention of this Court to the fact that no action of demolition was taken in respe...
Tag this Judgment!