NANDATAI versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

NANDATAI versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Since notice under Section 5A was given to the holder on record, and he was heard, omission to give notice to the subsequent owner (petitioner) does not vitiate the enquiry or violate Section 5A(2) of the Act.

Parties
Petitioner: Nandatai; Respondents: State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 September 1996
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition / Dismissal at Supreme Court
Outcome
petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Notice to Owner, Enquiry Under Section 5 a, Mutation and Ownership, Validity of Enquiry
Land Acquisition Notice to Owner Enquiry Under Section 5 a Mutation and Ownership Validity of Enquiry

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nandatai

Petitioner

State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition / Dismissal at Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does omission to give notice to subsequent owner vitiate the Section 5A enquiry under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?

Ratio Decidendi

Since notice under Section 5A was given to the holder on record, and he was heard, omission to give notice to the subsequent owner (petitioner) does not vitiate the enquiry or violate Section 5A(2) of the Act.

Court Disposition

petition dismissed

Orders

  • Petition dismissed
  • High Court's refusal to interfere with the declaration and notification sustained