Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SUSHIL KUKREJA
Land Acquisition Collector – Appellant
Versus
Registrar (Judicial) Administrator-General High Court of H.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of appeal and compensation details (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. contentions regarding the appeal's maintainability (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's reasoning on quasi-judicial capacity of the collector (Para 6 , 8 , 10) |
| 4. principles from precedents on appeal against quasi-judicial decisions (Para 9) |
| 5. dismissal of the appeal for lack of maintainability (Para 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT :
SUSHIL KUKREJA, J.
1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant, who was respondent No. 1 before the learned Court below (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”) under Section 54 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (for short “the Act”) against award dated 27.12.2010, passed by learned District Judge (Forest), Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Reference Court”), in Land Reference Petition No. 5-S/4 of 1990, whereby the learned Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation.
2. The brief facts of the case are that State of H.P., issued notification, dated 30.05.1986, under Section 4 qua acquisition of the following land for the purpose of construction of NCC Complex and NCC Bhawan, Shimla:
2(a). The above Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published
A quasi judicial authority, having adjudicated an award, lacks locus standi to appeal against a reversal of its decision by a higher authority without explicit authorization.
The Reference Court in land acquisition matters lacks the authority to set aside a Collector's award and remand for fresh determination, functioning instead to affirm or enhance the award according t....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the Acquiring Authority cannot selectively challenge awards for the same subject parcels of land, based on the principle of non-discriminat....
The Collector's order under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act is not appealable to the High Court under Section 54 as the Collector is not defined as a 'Court'.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellant's appeal was not maintainable as the appellant had not sought leave of the court to file the appeal, as required by the Land Acq....
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
