SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 325

K.RAMASWAMY, G.B.PATTANAIK
Officer On Special Duty (Land Acquisition) – Appellant
Versus
Shah Manilal Chandulal – Respondent


JUDGMENT

K. Ramaswamy, J.-Leave granted.

2. A short but an important question of law arises for decision in these appeals. By a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) (for short, the "Act") published in the State Gazette on February 20, 1984, Government acquired the land for public purpose. The Land Acquisition Officer (for short, the "LAO") made his award under Section 11 on February 28, 1989. The respondents were present at the time when the award was announced. On June 10, 1989 they applied for reference under Section 18. After giving an opportunity of hearing, by order dated January 9, 1990 the LAO rejected the application for reference on the ground that it was barred by limitation, i.e., beyond six weeks from the date of the award. In writ petitions the High Court of Gujarat in the impugned order dated March 13, 1992 in Special Civil Application No., 2296/90 and batch held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to the proceedings before the Collector and that, therefore, reasons given to condone the delay for filing the application were valid. The reasons were that they had applied for certified copy of the award and after its supply





















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top