Back
M. S. SONAK
Mulla Abdul Razac – Appellant
Versus
Mulla Ibrahim – Respondent
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Heard Mr A.D. Bhobe for the Petitioner and Mr John Lobo for Respondent No.1(e) in all these Petitions. The endorsement dtd. 8/11/2018 confirms that all the Respondents have been served.
2. This Court, by an order dtd. 25/10/2018, while issuing notices to the Respondents, had made it clear that all these Petitions would be taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. This was more so since proceedings before the Reference Court were also stayed by this Court.
3. Accordingly, Rule is issued in all these Petitions, and these Petitions are taken up for final disposal.
4. The challenge in this Petition is to the separate but identical orders dtd. 10/8/2018, dismissing the Petitioner's applications for impleadment as a party in the references under Sec. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (said Act) on the ground that though, factually a reference was made concerning the Petitioner, due to a clerical error on the part of the Collector's Office, the Petitioner's name remained to be included in the references forwarded to the District Court
5. The learned Reference Court, relying upon the decision of Shayamali Das vs. Illa Chowdhry and ors. - Appeal (Civil) 4632 of
The court established that clerical errors should not preclude a party from being included in legal proceedings, especially when they have raised valid disputes within the appropriate timeframe, and ....
Third parties not named in land acquisition proceedings cannot implead themselves in reference proceedings and must seek a reference from the Deputy Commissioner.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the reference under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, must pertain to the apportionment of compensation settled under section 11 o....
The limitation period for seeking reference under Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act starts from the date of knowledge of the essential contents of the award, and the provisions of the Limitat....
The Reference Court's jurisdiction is confined to the objections referred by the Collector, and it cannot dismiss proceedings based on irrelevant technical grounds.
The Reference Court's jurisdiction is limited to the objections referred by the Collector, and it cannot dismiss proceedings on irrelevant grounds.
The court established that under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Deputy Commissioner has a mandatory duty to make a reference within 90 days, and failure to do so, along with the claimant's inact....
The Reference Court must consider actual or constructive knowledge of the award's contents when determining limitation and cannot dismiss proceedings based on irrelevant grounds.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
