Supreme Court of India
MARWARI PANCHAYAT, AMRITSAR ETC. versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
- Decided
- 1 November 1995
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, B.N. KIRPAL
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 708 · 1995 INSC 670
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
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.
CA. No. 10016/1995 (@ SLP (C) No. 7157/88)
p. 709, margin A
Leave granted.
p. 709, margin B
By an order of this Court dated November 2, 1988, the validity in C.A. Nos. 1764 & 2160 of 1988 titled Shivram & Ors. Etc. v. State of Punjab & Ors., this Court had upheld the validity of the proceedings initiated by Khanna Improvement Trust to implement the scheme framed under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922. The High Court in this case refused to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground that the writ petition was highly belated. The High Court was justified in its conclusion. The notification under Section 36 was published on March 3, 1971 and the writ petition was filed sometime in 1988 and came to be dismissed on June 7, 1988. It is an admitted fact that the appellant had filed an application in 1978 seeking exemption of the appellant's lands from the scheme. Thereby, it would imply that they had the knowledge of the acquisition proceedings even as early as in 1978. Even then no action was taken till 1988. Under these circumstances, we do not think that it is a case for us warranting interference at this belated stage. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. IN CA No. 21/83
p. 709, margin B
The controversy raised in this appeal is covered by the judgment of this Court in Slzivram & 01s. Etc. v. State of Punjab & Ors., referred to earlier. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. G.N. Appeal dismissed.
p. 709, margin E