Avinash ~ ~ ; - • NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LTD. 1087 & Anr. v. MAHESH DUTIA Sharma (1970 (2) SCC 149; Stendra Prasad Jain v. A & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 s. 114
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ss. 4, 17, 48
- Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1984
- Land Acquisition Act ss. 17, 48
- What the Act
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. XXI r. 35
- Constitution of India arts. 142, 226
Judgment
Lt. Governor of Himachal Pdradesh & Anr. v. Sri Avinash ~ ~ ; - • NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LTD. 1087 v. MAHESH DUTIA AND ORS. Sharma (1970 (2) SCC 149; Stendra Prasad Jain & ors. v. A State of UP & Ors. (1993) 4 SCC 369; Pratap & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1996) 3 SCC 1; Sanjeevnagar Medical & Health Employees' Cooperative Housing Society v. Mohd. Abdul Wahab & Ors. (1996) 3 SCC 600; Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. A Viswam (1996) 8 SCC 259; Bangalore B Development Authority & Ors. v. R. Hanumaiah & Ors. (2005) 12 SCC 508 and State of Kera/a & Ors. v. VP Kurien & Ors. (2005) 11 sec 493, relied on
1.4. Furthermore, the Collector under the Act was c acting as a statutory authority. When possession has been shown to have been taken over not only in terms of sub-section (1) s. 17 of the Act but also by grant of the certificate and other documents, s. 114 of the Evidence Act 1872 gets attracted. Once such a presumption is drawn, the burden would be on the State to prove the contra. The burden of proof could be discharged only by adducing clear and cogent evidence. The records clearly show that the possession had in fact been taken. (Para 35) (1111-D-F] D E .,, ~
1.5. If the statement made by the respondents that they were not in possession is found to be incorrect, legal steps as permissible in law may be taken. If the respondents. and /or any other persons are found to be in possession of the lands which were the subject matter F of acquisition in terms of the notification u/s 4 of the Act, appropriate steps for their eviction can be initiated. The authorities of the State Government shall render all cooperation to the appellant in this behalf. [Para 37] (1111- H; 1112-A-C) G
#2. It is not a case where oral evidence was required to be taken. There is no law that the High Court is denied or debarred from entering into a disputed question of fact. If a disputed-question can be determined on the basis of the documents and I or affidavit, the High Court H 1088 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R. A may not ordinarily refuse to do so. In a given case, it may also examine witnesses. (Para 33] (1102-F-H] ~ •
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.