TIKA RAM vs STATE OF U.P. — C.A. No. 2650 - 2652/1998
Case under Section III-A. Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010075311998
Filing Date
05-May-1998
Registration No
C.A. No. 2650 - 2652/1998
Diary Number
7531/1998
Order Date
09-Sep-2009
Document Type
Judgment - of Main Case
Disposal Type
Dismissed
Last updated 03-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.TIKA RAM
Adv. ANIL K. CHOPRA (Expired)
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF U.P.
Adv. SHAKIL AHMED SYED (Dead / Retired / Elevated)
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
09-Sep-2009
Judgment - of Main CaseView PDF
-
09-Sep-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
10-Dec-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
04-Dec-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
03-Dec-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
03-Dec-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
02-Dec-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
27-Nov-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
26-Nov-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
20-Nov-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
19-Nov-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
18-Nov-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
16-Sep-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
26-Aug-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
05-Aug-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
30-Apr-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
01-Apr-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
04-Mar-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
18-Feb-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
16-Jan-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
20-Nov-2007
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
24-Oct-2007
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
03-Oct-2007
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
22-Aug-2007
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
09-May-2007
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
22-Mar-2007
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
13-Feb-2007
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
05-Dec-2006
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
31-Oct-2006
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
26-Sep-2006
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
05-May-1998
Case filed
Registration No. C.A. No. 2650 - 2652/1998
Summary of Tika Ram v. State of U.P. (C.A. No. 002650-002652/1998) The Supreme Court dismissed all appeals challenging land acquisitions by the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) for the Ujariyaon Housing Scheme. The Court upheld: (1) the constitutional validity of the Land Acquisition (U.P. Amendment and Validation) Act, 1991, which validated simultaneous publication of Section 4 notifications and Section 6 declarations; (2) the justification for invoking the urgency clause under Section 17(4) to dispense with Section 5-A inquiry; and (3) that non-payment of 80% compensation does not vitiate the acquisition itself. The Court rejected claims of arbitrary discrimination and affirmed the High Court's findings that possession was taken in 1985 and a substantial township had been developed with third-party interests created. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts