Shri Mandir Sita Ramji v Late Governor of Delhi and others(1974): When the legislature has spoken, the judges cannot afford to be wiser.

Case Shri Mandir Sita Ramji v. Late Governor of Delhi and Others, AIR 1974 SC 1868
CourtBefore the Supreme Court of India
BenchChief Justice AN Ray, Justice Kuttyil Kurien Mathew
Author of the judgementJustice Kuttyil Kurien Mathew
Decided On6 August, 1974
Advocate for the appellantJ. K. Jain and T. V. S. Narasimhachari
Advocate for the respondent L. N. Sinha, Solicitor General of India, S. N. Prasad, and R.N. Sachthey
AbstractIn the present case, the appellant's land was taken without giving him an opportunity of being heard. Both the single judge and the division bench of the High Court ruled in the favor of the appellant and directed the Delhi Administration to provide hearing to the appellant. Under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, it is necessary for the Land Collector to hear the objector and give recommendations. However, this recommendations are not binding on the government. In the present case, the collector did not hear the objector and the hearing was given to the administration directly. The division bench held that there was no need to take into consideration the recommendation of the collector and thus there is no infringement of section 5A of the Act. The Supreme Court did not agree to this and held that the provisions of the statute are mandatory to be observed.
Author of the briefAditya Gor
KeywordsNotification, Land Acquisition Act, Religious Trust, Land Collector, Natural Justice, Legislature.


Continue Reading

[Case Brief] Vijay Narayan Thatte & Ors v/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors

“Rules of Interpretation are very important in law courts. When the British came to India they introduced the principles of interpretation of Maxwell, laid down in his classic treatise ‘Interpretation of Statutes’ and these principles are broadly still being followed in our law courts in India. However, our ancient thinkers had created a system of interpretation called the Mimansa Rules of Interpretation, which appears to have been totally suppressed by the British, evidently because they wanted to create an impression that Indians are a race of fools and savages with no worthwhile intellectual achievement to their credit.” – Justice Katju.

Vijay Narayan Thatte & Ors vs State of Maharashtra & Ors

Civil Appeal No. 5614 of 2009

Before Supreme Court of India

Decided on: 18th August 2009

Bench: Markandey Katju, Ashok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.

Author of the Judgement: Justice Ashok Kumar Ganguly

Advocates for Appellants: Shri Harish Salve and Shri Shyam Diva, Learned Senior Counsels

Advocates for Respondent: Goolam Essaji Vahanvati, Attorney General of India and Shekhar Naphade, Advocates


Continue Reading
Close Menu