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

1995 Supreme(Del) 275

ARUN KUMAR, D.K.JAIN, M.JAGANNADHA RAO
MAHLI DEVI – Appellant
Versus
CHANDER BHAN – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
amicus curiae, ARUN MOHAN, G.N.AGGARWAL, N.S.VASHISHT, P.L.Kalra

Arun Kumar, J.

( 1 ) THE question for consideration by the Full Bench is whether a Letters Patent appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent applicable to this court is maintainable in view of the provisions of Sec. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the Act ). The reference has arisen on the basis of an objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent questioning the maintainability of the present appeal. Reliance was placed on two judgments of Division Benches of this court in L. P. A. No. 97 of 1980 (Basant Kumar vs. UOI) and L. P. A. 148 of 1988 (Jugti (deceased) through LRs. vs. UOI ). These judgments are based on a judgment of the Supreme Court dated 30. 7. 1987 in Civil Appeals No. 1663 to 1668 of 1982 Baljit Singh etc. vs. State of Haryana, holding that a Letters Patent appeal is not maintainable against the judgment of a Single Judge of the court. It is noted in the referring order dated 22. 8. 1994 that the said Supreme Court decision arising in the context of proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act was based on a concession. It was conceded before the Supreme Court that a Letters Patent appeal did not lie against a judgment


























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