The court dismissed a writ petition filed by an accused against the Chief Revenue Officer challenging objections filed by private respondents to a compensation payment order. The court held the petition was premature as no adverse order had been passed.
The writ petition was dismissed as being premature.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 882 of 2018
Petitioner :- Vijay Yadav Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kailash Nath Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Pranjal Mehrotra
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
The grievance of the petitioner is that after passing the order dated 12 May 2017 regarding payment of compensation for the land that was acquired under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956, the Competent Officer, who is the Chief Revenue Officer is proceeding to hear the objections filed by private respondent nos. 4 and 5.
Shri Ajay Kumar Singh has appeared for Union of India and Shri Pranjal Mehrotra has appeared for the National Highways Authority of India.
The petition is clearly pre-mature as at present no adverse order against the petitioner has been passed and the order dated 12 May 2017 appears to also have been passed without hearing private respondent nos. 4 and 5.
The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.1.2018 A. V. Singh
(Dilip Gupta,J.)
(Jayant Banerji,J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition is premature in view of the pendency of objections by private respondents to the compensation payment order.
Vijay Yadav
Union Of India
Dilip Gupta
Jayant Banerji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
