Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 2 docs
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Shyam Sunder Agarwal & Co vs Union Of India on 9 January, 1996

Application to MA in Law, Politics and Society in Ambedkar University, Delhi is open till 24 June. Apply here

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

Gujarat High Court
Duda vs State on 23 August, 2010
Author: Jayant Patel,&Nbsp;Honble Kumari,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CA/8970/2010	 1/ 4	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY No. 8970 of 2010
 

In
MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION (STAMP NUMBER) No. 1036 of 2003
 

To


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY No. 9028 of 2010
 

 
 
=====================================================
 

DUDA
LAXMAN - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
 

=====================================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
KL DAVE for Petitioner(s) : 1, 
Mr.K.L.Pandya,learned
ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) :
1, 
=====================================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

HON'BLE
			SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 13/08/2010 

 

 
 
COMMON
ORAL ORDER

(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)

1. All the applications are for condonation of delay of 934 days in preferring applications for review against the judgment and order dated 8-8-2000 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the respective First Appeals.

2. The pertinent aspect is that as such if the cause for delay is considered, it cannot be said that the delay of 934 days is sufficiently explained by the applicant. Reason being that the ground, as sought to be canvased is that the papers were lost in the office of Mr.Bhandari and, therefore, for such a long period it could not be communicated. No affidavit of Mr.Bhandari is filed. Therefore, it can be said that the delay is not sufficiently explained.

3. Apart from the above in order to see that the merits of the matter may not be frustrated, we have also heard Mr.Dave, learned counsel appearing for the applicant on merits of the review applications.

4. Upon hearing Mr.Dave on the main Review Applications on merits, it appears that the matters are covered by the earlier decision of this Court dated 13-7-2010 in Misc. Civil Application No.1562 of 2010 and allied matters, on the aspect of review of the order passed in the First Appeal for claiming interest as per the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court, which has been referred to by the applicant i.e. Sunder v. Union of India, reported in AIR 2001 SC 3516. It may be recorded that in the aforesaid decision of this Court, it was observed thus at para 2 and 3:

2. When the matter is taken up for hearing for the first time, Mr.Patel, learned counsel appearing for the applicants in all the matters fairly conceded that after filing of the present applications, as per the decision of this Court dated 6-10-2009 in Misc. Civil Application No.2319 of 2009 and allied matters,such a prayer has not been granted and further stated that in view of the aforesaid decision, he is not inviting the reasons.

3. Suffice it to state that the issues which arise for consideration are covered by the decision of this court dated 6-10-2009 in Misc. Civil Application No.2319 of 2009 and allied matters whereby the view taken is that the original claimants-applicants herein, would not be entitled to claim the interest on solatium under Section 23(2) and the additional compensation under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act,since the applicants herein had never challenged the judgment and award of this court before the Apex Court, at the relevant point of time.

5. Similar view deserves to be taken in the present case inasmuch as the applicant herein,at the relevant point of time did not challenge the order of this Court in the First Appeal and, therefore, such a relief cannot be granted in a review application on the ground as sought to be canvassed and, therefore, the review applications are meritless and deserve to be dismissed.

6. In view of the above, we find that on merits there is no case for review and no useful purpose will be served by condoning the delay even if the lenient view is taken on the aspect of delay. Hence all the Civil Applications for condonation of delay are dismissed.

(Jayant Patel,J) (Smt.Abhilasha Kumari,J) arg     Top