Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
Manjul Ali S/o Late Samser Ali – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. A.T. Sarkar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants. Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the Revenue Department, Government of Assam and Mr. D. Nath, the learned Senior Government Advocate, Government of Assam appears on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector.
2. The instant appeal is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act of 1894”) challenging the judgment and order dated 25.08.2023 passed by the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Dhubri (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned Reference Court”) whereby the Reference proceedings being L.A. Case No. 102/2017 which arises out of L.A. Case No. 1/2005-2006, Award No. 25 was dismissed on 2 (two) technical grounds. First, on the ground that the Reference proceeding was barred by limitation and secondly on the ground that the Respondent No. 1 herein which is the Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Government of Assam was not arrayed as a party to the Reference proceedings.
3. Taking into account that on the above two preliminary grounds the Reference proceeding was dismissed, this Court has tak
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.
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 District Court cannot question the validity of a reference made by the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act once jurisdiction is established.
A District Judge cannot refuse to entertain a reference made by a Collector, even if based on a time-barred application, as the legislation does not grant such authority.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of section 18 of the Works of the Defence Act, 1903 (WODA) regarding the maintainability of a reference at the i....
The mandatory nature of the provisions under Section 18 of Act, 1894, and the requirement for the application to be made within the prescribed time limit.
The Referral Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a reference made outside the statutory limit prescribed by the Land Acquisition Act, reinforcing the mandatory nature of compliance with statutory t....
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
