Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD LUCKNOW (U.P.) versus SMT. PUSHPA LATA AWASTHI

Decided
6 March 1995
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[1995] 2 S.C.R. 513 · 1995 INSC 161

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

In view of the fact that the respondents had purchased the property on May 21, 1983, they cannot have any higher right than what the owner had. Admittedly, the owner had not challenged the notification. Awasthi was the subsequent purchaser from Chotelal. Notice was given to Chote Lal and Awasthi had not challenged the notification. Therefore, it is not open to the respondents to challenge the notification after they had purchased the property in question. Under these circumstances, the High Court was clearly in error in alloWing the Writ Petition No. 15781/83. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

p. 514, margin A

C.A. Nos. 3942 and 3943 of 1995. (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 2886/86 & 2899/86). Leave granted.

p. 514, margin C

In view of the order of Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 1143/86, these appeals are allowed. No costs.

p. 514, margin D

C.A.No. 3941 of 1995. (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2885/86).

p. 514, margin D

Though notice was served on the respondent, nobody appears for him. Leave granted. In Gauri Shankar Gaur and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., [1994] (1) SCC 92, this Court, one of us - K. Ramaswamy, J., elaborately considered and held that certain provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 were incorporated in the State Act. Therefore, it is not a case of reference. In consequence, the Land Acquisition Amendment Act 68 of 1984 was inapplicable. Unless the State legislature incorporates the amendment, these cannot be applied to the proceedings initiated under the State Act. The notification acquiring the land, therefore, does not lapsed.

p. 514, margin E

The writ petition was also allowed by the High Court on th~' ground that notice under s.29 wa§-not served on the respondent. It is stated in the counter affidavit thus :

p. 514, margin G

"It is submitted that the notice under s.29 of the Adhiniyam was issued and served to the petitioner and in response to the notice under s. 29 of the Adhiniyam the petitioner admittedly filed the objection which has been annexed by the petitioners as Annexure

p. 515, margin A

4 with the writ petition itself."

p. 515, margin A

In view of this specific averment, we find that the High Court was not justified in allowing the writ petition and quashing the notification. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. ( T.NA. Appeal allowed.

p. 515, margin B