REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Appellant

V/S

LILAVATIBEN KODAR RANCHHOD Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

SHAKUNTALA DEVI JAIN V. KUNTAL KUMARI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA V. E.K.KURIYIPE [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA V. E.K.KURIYIPE AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
MILAVI DEVI V. DINA NATH [REFERRED TO]
PRABHA V. RAM PARKASH KALRA [REFERRED TO]
PRABHA V. RAM PARKASH KALRA [REFERRED TO]
RAMLAL VS. REWA COALFIELDS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
SHAKUNTALA DEVI JAM VS. KUNTAL KUMARI [REFERRED TO]
LALA MATA DIN VS. A NARAYANAN [REFERRED TO]
LALA MATA DIN VS. A NARAYANAN [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. SHANT1 MISRA ADULT [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. SHANT1 MISRA ADULT [REFERRED TO]
CONCORD OF INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. NIRMALA DEVI [REFERRED TO]
CONCORD OF INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. NIRMALA DEVI [REFERRED TO]
O P KATHPALIA VS. LAKHMIR SINGH DEAD [REFERRED TO]
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE B M NARAYANASWAMI B M RAMASWAMY VS. B M KRISHNAMURTHY:SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER:SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION ANANTNAG VS. KATIJI [REFERRED TO]
G RAMEGOWDA MAJOR BASAVALINGAPPA VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE:SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE [REFERRED TO]
G RAMEGOWDA MAJOR BASAVALINGAPPA VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE:SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE [REFERRED TO]
SCHEDULED CASTE CO OPERATIVE LAND OWNING SOCIETY LIMITED BHATINDA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
JIWANI KUMARI PAREKH VS. SATYABRATA CHAKRAVORTY MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE WEST BENGAL HANDICRAFT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
SHAKAMBARI AND COMPANY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
BINOD BIHARI SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
BINOD BIHARI SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
WARLU VS. GANGOTRIBAI [REFERRED TO]
RAM KISHAN VS. U P STATE ROADWAYS TRANSPORT CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX BOMBAY VS. AMATEUR RIDERS CLUB BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
NAND KISHORE VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. CHANDRA MANI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. CHANDRA MANI [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. A VASU [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. HARISH CHANDRA [REFERRED TO]
SPECIAL TEHSILDAR LAND ACQUISITION KERALA VS. K V AYISUMMA [REFERRED TO]
SPECIAL TEHSILDAR LAND ACQUISITION KERALA VS. K V AYISUMMA [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY MINISTRY OF WORKS AND HOUSING GOVERNMENT OF INDIA VS. MOHINDER SINGH JAGDEV [REFERRED TO]
N BALAKRISHNAN VS. M KRISHNAMURTHY [REFERRED TO]
N BALAKRISHNAN VS. M KRISHNAMURTHY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. KAMESHWAR PRASAD SINGH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. PRADEEP KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
H H BRIJ INDAR SINGH VS. LALA KANSHI RAM [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this group of 20 applications a common question of condonation of delay on the common ground is involved, therefore, upon request they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The condonation of delay in filing First Appeals against the common award of the Reference Court, Ahmedabad, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act), is sought to be condoned inter-alia pleading that there is a delay of 146 days on the part of the applicant - Special Land Acquisition Officer, on the grounds stated, elaborately, in para. 2, which is supported by an affidavit of the officer of the Legal Department of the State of Gujarat. The delay is, therefore, sought to be condoned on the ground of inter and intra departmental procedural delay, since the decision making process for challenging the common award of the Reference Court was to be crystallized, after having consultation and discussions with various departments inter-alia mainly, General Administration, Roads and Building, Finance and Legal Department after the certified copies having been received from the concerned law officers, who conducted the cases at the District level, in view of the provisions of Law Officers Rules 132 and 133.

(3.) It has been evidently and unambiguously articulated in para. 2 of the appliciations that the process which the file had to undergo for maturing the decision of questioning the awards. It is in this context, the delay of 146 days in filing a group of 22 appeals has been sought to be condoned by invoking the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The grounds stated in this group of applications are supported by an affidavit of responsible officer of the Legal Department of the State of Gujarat.

Click here to view full judgment.

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Vs. LILAVATIBEN KODAR RANCHHOD

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address