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

DELHI HIGH COURT
MUKUL MUDGAL, S.L.BHAYANA
Om Prakash – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Mukul Mudgal, J. (Oral)

1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this review petition is taken up for hearing. Review is sought of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 27th April 2006 in respect of the acquisition of the land of the petitioner in the village Ranhola by the award No.8/1996-97. The judgment of this Court enhanced the compensation assessed by the reference Court under Section 18 of the Act to Rs.1 lakh per bigha. The main ground of review is that the judgment loses sight of the Ex.A2 produced by the appellant which had indicated the value of the land in 1990 to be Rs.1.25 lakhs per bigha whereas the judgment only awarded Rs.1 lakh per bigha for a Section 4 notification issued on 6th January 1995. The review petitioner by way of the present petition seeks review of the judgment and decree dated 27th April 2006 delivered by the Division Bench of this Court. Review has been sought on account of the error apparent pointed out on the record by the learned counsel for the appellant as recorded in paragraph 24 of the judgment dated 27th April 2006. Paragraph 24 of the said judgment reads as follows:

    24. On proper analysis of the

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