Lord Cranworth LC said: ‘The principle is this, that when persons embarking in great undertakings, for the accomplishment of which those engaged in them have received authority from the Legislature to take compulsorily the lands of others, making to the latter proper compensation, the persons so authorized cannot be allowed to exercise the powers conferred on them for any collateral object; that is, for any purposes except those for which the Legislature has invested them with extraordinary powers.’
Judges:
Lord Cranworth LC
Citations:
(1866) LR 1 HL 34
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Galloway v The Mayor, Aldermen And Commons Of The City Of London 26-Apr-1864
In 1863, an Act was passed authorizing the Corporation of London to make a new street and buy certain lands (including the land of the Plaintiff) and sell such parts of them as were not required to form part of the sreet. Shortly before the passing . .
See Also – Galloway v The Corporation Of London 13-Feb-1865
In July 1862 the Corporation of London obtained Parliamentary powers for taking the Plaintiffs land for public purposes. But, prior thereto (June 1862) the Corporation had contracted to sell these lands to another company, not then empowered to . .
See Also – Galloway v The Mayor, Commonalty And Citizens Of The City Of London 2-May-1865
The Corporation of London in 1862 obtained an Act authorising them to make a new street and buy land for that purpose, with certain powers of reselling land not required for the street. About the same time a railway company obtained an Act . .
See Also – Galloway v The Mayor, Commonalty And Citizens of London HL 29-Jun-1865
A bill filed by the Plaintiff to restrain the Defendant from taking certain property of his under their statutory powers had been dismissed and the order of dismissal enrolled. The Plaintiff presented a petition of appeal to the House of Lords, and . .
Cited by:
Cited – Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Wolverhampton City Council and Another SC 12-May-2010
The appellant’s land was to be taken under compulsory purchase by the Council who wished to use it to assist Tesco in the construction of a new supermarket. Tesco promised to help fund restoration of a local listed building. Sainsbury objected an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land, Constitutional
Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.414941