Find a Lawyer

REHMAT JAN versus COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION, MANGLA DAM RAISING PROJECT CIRCLE MIRPUR

Sections 4, 9, 11, 18, 23, 25 (2), 45 and 54 Land Acquisition Compensation Increase Compensation Respondents / Authorities have raised objections that appellant / landlord has not objected. Has made any claim. In pursuance of the notice issued to them under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the reimbursement by the referee judge violates section (2) of section 25 of the Act, no doubt under section 25. There is no doubt in the light of the record. 2) An applicant of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, who refused to make a claim or excluded it without good reason for making such claim, then the amount paid by the court exceeded the amount paid by the collector. Will not Attract when it was proved that the claimant was strictly taken notice of the special procedure in section 45 of the Land Act 1894, after service, if there were any objections not filed with the collector nor the claim. After that, the bar in section 25 (2) of section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 could be raised, otherwise the referee judge was not barred from raising section 25 (2) of the land. The Acquisition Act, 1894, is of a deterministic nature, so in order to draw, not only had the compliance with the mandatory procedure related to the service of the notice revised by section 45 of the Act but also the appropriate service, The source was to prove it. The court online advocate from Qasba Gujrat lawyer