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

2017 Supreme(All) 89

DILIP GUPTA, SIDDHARTHA VARMA
KAMLA TOMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
Rakesh Kumar Srivastava for the Petitioner; C.S.C. for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

By the Court.—The issue that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the delay in filing an application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (the Act) can be condoned.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the delay can be condoned and, therefore, the application that had been filed beyond the time prescribed under Section 28-A of the Act was required to be decided on merits after condoning the delay.

3. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the time period provided for under Section 28-A of the Act for filing the application cannot be extended and, therefore, the application filed by the petitioner which was admittedly beyond the time prescribed cannot be entertained.

4. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

5. It is alleged that land admeasuring 78 acres situated in Village-Arthala, District Ghaziabad, including the land belonging to the husband of the petitioner, was acquired in 1960 by the State Government. The award was made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the Act on 28 September 1977 by adopting the belting system. The mark





































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