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

There is a thin line of difference between Administrative Acts and Quasi-Judicial Acts: SC [Case Brief]

The powers between the Union and the state government has been distributed under Part XI of the Indian Constitution. These powers are further classified into Legislative, Administrative and Judicial powers. An administrative law, as defined under Black’s Law Dictionary 8th Edn., is “An act made in a management capacity esp., an act made outside the actor’s usual field (as when a judge supervises court personnel). An Administrative Act is often subject to greater risk of liability than act within the actor’s usual field.” 

While a Quasi-Judicial Act clearly suggests that there must be two or more contending parties and an outside authority to decide those disputes.Thus a presence of lis or two rival parties is must in order to hold the statutory authority as quasi- judicial body.Thus there is a very thin line of difference between both. In circumstances where there are no two rival parties, it is a judicial procedure which is required to be followed in Quasi-Judicial acts and not in Administrative acts.

A.K. Kraipak & Ors. Etc vs Union of India & Ors

Before Supreme Court of India

Decided on: 29 April 1969

Bench: Hidayatullah, M. (CJ.), Shelat, J.M., Bhargava, Vishishtha, hedge, K.S., Grover, A.N.

Author of the judgement: Justice Hegde

Advocates for petitioners:

  • K. Sen and E.C. Agrawala (in W.P. No. 173 of 1967)
  • Frank Anthony, E.C. Agrawala and A.T.M. Sampat (in W.P.No. 174 of 1967)
  • K. Daphtary, E.C. Agrawala, A.T.M. Sampat, S.R. Agarwala and Champat Rai (in W.P.No. 175 of 1967)

Advocates for Respondent:

  • Niren De, Attorney-General, N.S. Bindra and R.N. Sachthey ( For respondents no. 1 to 6) (in all petitions)
  • R. Gokhale and Harbans Singh (For Respondent Nos. 7 and 26) (in all petitions)


Continue Reading
Close Menu