The Land Acquisition Act, 1894  - Section 4 (1) , Section 6

Notification and declaration - Acquisition of land - Land Acquisition Officer award compensation Rs.300/- per Aar and Rs.3,79,498/- Towards structures and Rs.6,300/- towards fruit-bearing trees -Reference Court enhanced compensation Rs.650/- per Aar as cost of land - High Court partly allowed - Appeal of State - Reduced market value Rs.500/- per Aar - Appeal for enhancement - Though claimant unable to prove - Existence of a hotel - Some structures existed -There is some development on acquired land - Land adjacent to Aurangabad-Jalgaon highway - 6 to 8 kms. away from Ajantha caves - An internationally famous tourist destination - Great future potential for development with respect to acquired land - Impugned order of High Court set aside - Reference Court restored - Appeal partly allowed - No costs.

Found In:  Judgement

The Land Acquisition Act, 1894  - Section 4 (1) , Section 17 (1) ,  (4)

Acquisition of land - Whether Division Bench of Allahabad High Court - Justified - Allowing writ petition - Nullifying acquisition of land by State Government - Notification dated 8.9.2023 - Followed by declaration dated 7.9.2023 - Ground - Non passing of award within time prescribed under Section 11A - Held - No - Respondent No.1 no complaint against acquisition - Taking possession by State Government - Delivery thereof to BDA - Supreme Court held - Delay of nine years from the date of publication of declaration - Six years from the date of passing of award - More than sufficient for denying equitable relief - Action of concerned State authorities - Go to spot and prepare panchnama - Showing delivery of possession - Sufficient for recording a finding - Actual possession taken and handed over to BDA in 2001 - Impugned order acquisition proceedings had lapsed due to non-compliance of Section 11A set aside - Appeal allowed.

Found In:  Judgement

Motor Vehicles Act,1988  - Section 166

Appellant and others going in a Fiat car - Driven by first respondent - Lost control of car and dashed the car with full force against a milestone - Occupants of the car sustained serious injuries - Tribunal found - First respondent absolutely liable for accident in view of his careless, rash and negligent driving - Directed respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to jointly and severally pay total compensation of Rs.6,07,000/- with interest at rate of 9% - Appeal for enhancement - Appellant 100% disability permanent in nature with no sign of recovery - Has two children and her husband died prior to incident - Dependence of children and running of family is to be shouldered by her - She is infirm and bedridden - Supreme Court enhanced compensation to Rs.15 lakhs with interest @ 8% p.a. to appellant-claimant - Appeal allowed - No costs.

Found In:  Judgement

The Consumer Protection Act,1986  - Section 12

Respondent deficiency in service - Appellant university did not issue M.Sc certificate after deposited the requisite fees - Ex-party order District Consumer Forum - Appellant to issue certificate and also pay Rs 50,000/- State commission dismissed appeal - National Commission agreed - Appeal - Respondent is employed as a teacher - Such an appointment could not have been possible without producing evidence of his having secured post graduate degree - Order set aside - Appeal allowed.

Found In:  Judgement

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908  - Order VII Rule (5) ,  Rule (7)

Title of the land - Suit filed - Trial Court - Dismissed the suit - High Court - Defendants have failed to establish their plea by way of adverse possession thus, held that the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for possession in the suit - Appeal - Amended plaint the prayer is only against defendant no.1 and not against defendant no.2 - Provisions of Order VII of CPC, in a case where prayer is not made against a particular defendant, no relief possibly can be granted against him - Appellants had been in peaceful possession of the disputed property from July 1963 and their predecessor-in-interest was in possession of the same property from 1950 till the property was transferred to predecessor-in-title of the appellant and the suit filed only in 1975 - Impugned order of the High Court set aside and that of the trial Court affirmed - Appeal allowed - No costs.

Found In:  Judgement

The Land Acquisition Act, 1894  - Section 17 (1) ,  (4) , Section 5-A

Invocation of - Section 5A - Whether justified - Non-suiting appellants - Ground - Not raised a specific plea supported by proper affidavit - Acquisition is primarily meant to cater private interest - Industrial development of district - No evidence before Court to show - State Government and/or agencies/instrumentalities - Intending to establish industrial units on acquired land - Even if planned industrial development of district - Treated as public purpose - No urgency which could justify - Exercise of power by State Government under Section 17(1) and 17(4) - Private entrepreneurs - Desirous of making investment in State - Take their own time in setting up industrial units - Time required ensuring compliance of provisions in Section 5-A - Cannot, by any stretch of imagination be portrayed as delay - Frustrate the purpose of acquisition - Held - No real and substantive urgency - Justify invoking of - Urgency provision - To exclude application of Section 5-A - Impugned order High Court set aside - Respondents directed to proceed - Stage of Section 4 notification - Take appropriate action - Complying with Section 5-A(1) and (2) - Appeal allowed.

Found In:  Judgement

Motor Vehicles Act,1988  - Section 166

Section 166 - Appellant-claimant was walking when the driver of a motorcycle came and dashed against the appellant, as a result of which the appellant sustained serious head injuries leading to weakness of his right hand and leg - Tribunal concluded accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle, - Awarded compensation at Rs.1,02,200/- with interest @ 6% p.a. - High Court enhanced compensation to Rs.2,78,500/- with interest @ 6% p.a. - Appeal - For enhancement of compensation - Doctor assessed 25-30% disability of the whole body and also added that as a result of the disability, the appellant was incapable of doing silk winding work or any other manual work - Assessed the disability of the victim to earn in future at 30% - Enhance the compensation to Rs.3,20,000/- payable to the claimant with interest @ 6% p.a. - Appeal allowed - No costs.

Found In:  Judgement

Motor Vehicles Act,1988  - Section 166

Compensation - Loss of income - Multiple injuries sustained - Appellant, a coolie - Doctor certified that the he could not work as a coolie or do any other manual work - Permanent residual physical disability of the upper limb assessed at 68% and 22-23% of the whole body - His earning claimed not supported by evidence - For loss of income during treatment, Tribunal held that as his right hand was fine, disability be assessed at 20% - Taking appellant's age as 55 years and multiplier as 11, loss of future income calculated - High Court took claimant's age as 50 years and multiplier as 13 - Whether inadequate. Held, yes, considering the nature of injuries suffered and the resultant adverse impact on the performance. Appellant has to do manual work all his life without using his left hand. This will affect his work quality and also prospects of getting a job. Hence, while computing loss of future income, disability should be taken at 68% and not 20%, as done by courts below. Raj Kumar's case relied. Amount awarded enhanced - Same payable at an interest of 6% from the date of claim petition till realization.

Found In:  Judgement

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955  - Section 16

Legitimacy of children - Void and voidable marriage - Suit filed - Trial Court properties were not self-acquired but ancestral properties - Third plaintiff was legally wedded wife of first defendant - Plaintiffs and first defendant - Entitled to 1/4th share each in all suit properties - High Court - First plaintiff, second plaintiff and first defendant - Entitled to 1/3rd share each in suit properties - Claim of third plaintiff - Second, third and fourth defendants - Rejected - Appeal - Whether illegitimate children are entitled to a share in coparcenary property - Whether their share is limited only to self-acquired property of their parents under Section 16(3) - section 16(3) does not impose any restriction on property right of children born from void marriages - Limiting it to property of their parents - Such children will have a right to - Property of their parents - Self acquired or ancestral - Matter referred for reconsideration by larger Bench.

Found In:  Judgement

The Land Acquisition Act, 1894  - Section 4 , Section 6 , Section 17

Acquisition of agricultural lands - Construction of district jail - Challenge - State Government issued notifications under Sections 4(1) and 17 - Section 5A inquiry dispensed - Urgency - Construction of jails - Writ petition dismissed - Appeal - Whether invoking urgency clause under Section 17 (4) justified - No - Valuable right under Section 5A - Cannot flattened and steamrolled - ipsi dixit - Time elapsed between publication and declaration - 11 months and 23 days - Clearly evinces - There was no urgency - Impugned notification relating lands quashed - Appeals allowed - No costs.

Found In:  Judgement