AJAY KRISHAN SHINGHAL ETC. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

AJAY KRISHAN SHINGHAL ETC. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Acquisition for planned development of Delhi is a valid public purpose even if particularisation of the land is absent; notification under Section 4(1) was not vitiated for vagueness nor absence of specification, and publication of substance in locality was adequately proven; mandatory procedural requirements of Section 4(1) satisfied.

Parties
Appellant: Ajay Krishan Shinghal; Respondent: Union of India; Respondent: Delhi Development Authority; Appellant: Bahadur Singh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
06 August 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal From Delhi High Court Judgment Dated 12.10.78 in L.p.a. No. 116 of 1975
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Land Acquisition for Planned Development, Public Purpose in Acquisition, Procedural Compliance Under Land Acquisition Act
Land Acquisition Land Acquisition for Planned Development Public Purpose in Acquisition Procedural Compliance Under Land Acquisition Act

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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ajay Krishan Shinghal

Appellant

Union of India

Respondent

Delhi Development Authority

Respondent

Bahadur Singh

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal From Delhi High Court Judgment Dated 12.10.78 in L.p.a. No. 116 of 1975

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Validity of notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
  2. 2 Whether substance of notification under Section 4(1) was published in the locality as mandated

Ratio Decidendi

Acquisition for planned development of Delhi is a valid public purpose even if particularisation of the land is absent; notification under Section 4(1) was not vitiated for vagueness nor absence of specification, and publication of substance in locality was adequately proven; mandatory procedural requirements of Section 4(1) satisfied.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Notification under Section 4(1) upheld
  • Appeals dismissed without costs