REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

PARSHADI Appellant

V/S

UNION OF INDIA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

MEDICAL EDUCATION AND REGISTRATION OF THE UNITED KINGDOM V. SPACKMAN [REFERRED [PARA 93] 29.]
NULAKKI SESHARATANAM V. SUB-COLLECTOR,LAND ACQUISITION VIJAYAWADA AND ORS. [REFERRED [PARA 70] 24.]
VED PRAKASH AND OTHERS V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [REFERRED 18.]
DATTATRAYA MORESHWAR VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED [PARA 36] 11.]
GHAIO MAL AND SONS VS. STATE OF DELHI [RELIED [PARA 110] 30.]
BACHHITTAR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED [PARA 39] 12.]
BISHAMBHAR DAYAL CHANDRA MOHAN JAGDISH PRASAD AGARWAL HARYANA DALL INDUSTRIES KALYANMAL DEEP CHAND AGGARWAL TRADING COMPANY ATTAR SINGH SANTOSH KUMAR J B FLOUR MILLS ANNUPCHAND SHYAMLAL K VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED [PARA 17] 4.]
COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA GIAN PRAKASH NEW DELHI VS. K S JAGANNATHAN [RELIED]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. KRIPALU SHANKAR [REFERRED [PARA 40] 13.]
BAKSHI SARDART LAL DEAD VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED [PARA 31] 8.]
PRABHAKARAN NAIR VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU ANT [REFERRED [PARA 20] 6.]
V BALASUBRAMANIAM VS. TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD [REFERRED [PARA 64] 21.]
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BOMBAY VS. GODREJ AND BOYCE [REFERRED [PARA 75] 28.]
RAMESH BIRCH S M MEHRA RAM KRISHNAN AND SONS CHARAN DASS SALUJA S S SODHI GURDIAL SINGH LAL SINGH SURINDER SHARMA SMT SWARAN KAUR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED [PARA 32] 9.]
G B MAHAJAN VS. JALGAON MUNICIPAL COUNCIL [REFERRED [PARA 33] 10.]
AMRIT BANASPATI COMPANY LIMITED VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED [PARA 25] 7.]
RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD VS. KISHAN [REFERRED [PARA 68] 22.]
GAURI SHANKAR GAUR VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED [PARA 51] 19.]
RAM CHAND VED PRAKASH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED [PARA 51] 1993 52 DLT 103=]
SUPREME COURT ADVOCATES ON RECORD ASSOCIATION S P GUPTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [RELIED [PARA 165] 34.]
S R BOMMAI VS. UNION OF INDIA [RELIED [PARA 147] 33.]
TATA CELLULAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [RELIED [PARA 141] 31.]
GULABRAO KESHAVRAO PATIL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED [PARA 41] 1996 1 CLT 226 (SC)= . 14.]
TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD VS. A VISWAM [REFERRED [PARA 60] 1996 2 CLT 138 (SC)= 20.]
TAGIN LITIN STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH VS. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH [REFERRED [PARA 42] 15.]
MURARI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED [PARA 6] 3.]
S P SUBRAMANYA SHETTY VS. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION [REFERRED [PARA 50] 16.]
LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED [PARA 50] 1998 3 SLT 583=11 (1998) CLT 6 (SC)= 17.]
D C M LIMITED VS. LT GOVERNOR DELHI [REFERRED [PARA 74] (FB)=1989 (I) DELHI LAWYER 225. 27.]
BALBIR SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR LAL ATREE VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. GOLCHA THEATRES [REFERRED TO]
ROSHANARA BEGUM VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
GOUDAPPA APPAYA PATIL VS. SHIVARI BHIMAPPA PATTAR [REFERRED [PAN 69] 23.]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Initially the petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to decide the representations of the petitioners dated 4.11.1996, 6.12.1996 and 24.1.1997 for releasing from acquisition the lands situated in village Kotia Mahigiran, Mehrauli either in terms of minutes recorded on 7.7.1995 as communicated on 28.7.1995 or issue fresh order and gazette it under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Further relief was sought directing the respondent to implement the National Housing Policy, 1994 as adopted by both the Houses of Parliament.

(2.) During the pendency of the writ petition, on the representation of the petitioners, the then Union Minister for Urban Development vide its order dated 13.4.1999 denotified the land of the petitioners as well as prepared a draft denotification notice. That decision was reversed by the succeeding Minister on 6.7.1999. The decision of reversal is under challenge before this Court.

(3.) It was the case of the petitioners that Notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 4,4.1964 and 7.12.1966. Thereafter nothing happened and only in 1981 and 1982 petitioners received notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act. Thereafter the petitioners challenged the entire acquisition proceedings and Notification of 1982 by petitioner Nos. 3 to 5. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and Supreme Court also dismissed the writ petition, and therefore, order of stay. of dispossession was vacated finally on 1.11.1996.

Click here to view full judgment.

PARSHADI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address