REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

RAKESH KUMARI Appellant

V/S

STATE OF U P Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

CALCUTTA GAS COMPANY PROPRIETARY LIMITED VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
HAR SHANKAR VS. DEPUTY EXCISE AND TAXATION COMMR [REFERRED TO]
RADHAKRISHNA AGARWAL VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
RAMANA DAYARAM SHETTY VS. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
PREMJI BHAI PARMAR R C RICHHARIYA VS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY:DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [REFERRED TO]
DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER VS. BISHWANATH TEA GO LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. ESCORTS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. K G MADHAVAN PILLAI [REFERRED TO]
BAREILLY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. AJAI PAL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
KRISHANLAL VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF PATIALA VS. S K SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. NARAIN PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
RANI LAXMIBAI KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK RANI LAXMIBAI KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK VS. CHAND BEHARI KAPOOR:KANTYANAGWANT [REFERRED TO]
UTKAL UNIVERSITY VS. NRUSINGHA CHARAN SARANGI [REFERRED TO]
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. KURIEN E KALATHIL [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. RAGHBIR CHAND SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. JAIN PLASTICS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
SADHANA LODH VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR VS. GHULAM MOHAMMAD DAR [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief :-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that opposite party no.4/Executive Engineer, Saryu Nahar Khand, Nanpara, Bahraich has admitted that the determination of the valuation of the land has not been made in accordance with the provisions of Government Order dated 19.03.2015, rather it has been done as per Government Order dated 08.10.2012 and as such, the opposite party nos.1 and 4 have violated the provisions of the Act of the Right to Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 2013). Consequently, the sale deed dated 07.04.2016, which was got executed in duress and by taking undue advantage of the power conferred upon the opposite parties, is void-ab-initio under the provisions of Section 46 (5) of the Act of 2013.

Click here to view full judgment.

RAKESH KUMARI Vs. STATE OF U P

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address