It was pleaded that land was acquired for the purpose of industrial development. " It is clear therefore that in the special circumstances of the case of Sarwan Singh the approver had been found to be a wholly unreliable witness. As already stated when an enactment is impugned on the ground that it is ultra vires and unconstitutional what has to be ascertained is the true character of the legislation and, for that purpose regard must be had to the enactment as a whole, to its objects, purpose and true intention and to the scope and effect of its provisions or what they are directed against and what they aim at (A.

At the same time, the High Court also noticed that Lawyer in Supreme Court of India (This Webpage) respect of land of many villages, possession had already been taken and substantial development work carried out. In the Judgment dated 08. The first respondent to this appeal is Bhanuram Pegu who is also the first respondent in Civil Appeal No. All these writ petitions were taken up analogously by the Full Bench and disposed of vide judgment dated 21. This led the said Division Bench to refer the matter to the larger Bench and orders dated 26-07-2011 were passed in this behalf.

This would mean that the rest of the acquisition proceedings was left untouched by this Court in A. Naidu, this Court annulled the Notification issued under Section 4 on the premises of limitation. Section 2(m) "factory" means any premises including the precincts thereof- (i) Whereon ten or more workers are working, or were working on any day of the preceding twelve months, and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power, or is ordinarily so carried on, or (ii) Whereon twenty or more workers are working, or were working on any day of the preceding twelve months, and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on without the aid of power, or is ordinarily so carried on.

However, in respect of three villages, when it found that no development work had been carried out at all by the Authorities during the intervening period, the High Court chose to quash the Notifications including consequential actions and directed restoration of the land to the respective land owners. As a sequel, spate of writ petitions came to be filed challenging the lands acquired not only by the notification dated 12-03-2008 but even by earlier notifications as well. 2011 with leading case known as Gajraj vs.

There is thus no confusion that the relief of quashing of the Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was expressly limited to some while being plainly denied to others, signifying thereby, that the Declaration under Section 6 was left untouched in the other cases. The State Government as well as Authority contested the matter by putting its justification to the invocation of Section 17 of the Act. 14 Even if we assume that the Order passed by this Court swept away the entire acquisition proceedings, the claim of the Respondents is still unsustainable.

The Full Bench of the High Court has accepted the plea of the land holders that invocation of emergency clause contained in Section 17 of the Act was impermissible and unwarranted. Naidu, it has been clarified that only those persons, who are the owners on the date of Section 4(1) Notification alone can question the validity of the acquisitionwhen the property was already notified for acquisition, if the petitioners had come to purchase the property, they cannot have any right to agitate with regard to procedural violation.

When these petitions came up before another Division Bench it noticed the aforesaid two conflicting views expressed by two different Division Benches. Thus, it enhanced the provisional compensation and also directed allotment of developed Abadi land to the extent 10% of their acquired land subject to maximum of 2500 sq. 658, 131 finding itself should inevitably have led the court to scrutinise his evidence in respect of the other accused persons with greater caution.

The second respondent is Lakhiram Kalita who is the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 1988 passed by the High Court in the case of A. Indeed it may be legitimate to point out that the learned Judges of the High Court have themselves criticised the evidence of the approver in dealing with the prosecution case against Gurdial Singh and have ultimately found that the account given by the approver is unreliable and, though there was circumstantial evidence which raised an amount of suspicion against Gurdial Singh, that would not be enough to sustain his conviction.

Thereafter, the respondent filed another supplementary affidavit stating that MoF had not concurred with the proposal to extend the benefit of deductions under Section 42 of the Act vide MoF O. This is how the matters were placed before the Full Bench and by that time as many as 471 writ petitions had accumulated. This appeal is on behalf of the Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam, against the judgment and order of the High Court relating to the Murmuria shop which is the subject-matter of Civil Appeal No.

669 referred to in the previous paragraph. It seems to us that if it was found that the approver's account against one of the accused persons was wholly discrepant, this (1) (1916) 2 K. Even compensation was paid in such cases, the High Court, instead of quashing the Notifications in respect of those villages, chose to adopt the middle path in an endeavour to balance the equities of both sides.