REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Shamrao Joma Chavan Appellant

V/S

COLLECTOR, KOLHAPUR Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

DODDS V. WALKER [REFERRED TO]
TAMAL LAHIRI VS. P N TAGORE [REFERRED TO]
TAMAL LAHIRI VS. P N TAGORE [REFERRED TO]
SAKETH INDIA LIMITED VS. INDIA SECURITIES LTD [REFERRED TO]
TARUN PRASAD CHATTERJEE VS. DINANATH SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
BIBI SALMA KHATOON VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. HIMACHAL TECHNO ENGINEERS [REFERRED TO]
PUSHPABEN NARAYAN RATHOD VS. UTTAMCHAND BUURMAL NAHAR [REFERRED TO]
BABAJI ALIAS BABAN KERU PHAPALE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
SHRIKRISHNA SITARAMAJI FANDE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
UTTAM H JADHAV VS. VISHWANATH N JADHAV [REFERRED TO]
BIR WATI & ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. RAJPATH CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS LTD [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present Writ Petition impugns order dtd. 18/2/2019 passed by the learned Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) No.12, Kolhapur Respondent No.2 whereby Application filed by Petitioners under Sec. 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the said Act") is rejected on the ground of it being barred by limitation. The said impugned order is appended at Exhibit 'B' - page No.16 of the Writ Petition.

(2.) The facts germane for adjudication of the present Writ Petition are as follows:-

(3.) Ms. Tulankar, learned Advocate for Petitioners would submit that Respondent No.2 erred in interpreting the provisions of Sec. 28A of the said Act. She has drawn my attention to Sec. 28A of the said Act and would submit that the limitation period prescribed under the said Sec. is 'three months' from the date of Award of the Court and not '90 days' as interpreted by the Respondent No.2.

Click here to view full judgment.

SHAMRAO JOMA CHAVAN Vs. COLLECTOR, KOLHAPUR

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address