Appeal dismissed against rejection of application to recall a land acquisition reference court order. Court held the lower order was based on recorded findings, merited hearing of counsel, and contained no illegality warranting interference.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:113365
Court No. - 35
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1055 of 2024 Appellant :- Arjun Prasad (Since Deceased) And 5 Others Respondent :- Collector/ Special Land Acquisition Officer Joint Committee Bhadohi And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ashutosh Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Heard Sri Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.
This first appeal from order has been filed on behalf of claimants / appellants against the order dated 21.02.2024, passed by Presiding Officer, Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority (LARRA), in Misc. Case No. 3 of 2016 (48 of 2023), arising out of LAR No. 12 of 2006 (Arjun Prasad vs. Collector and another) by which, the application filed by appellants under Order 9 Rule 9 read with Section 151 C.P.C. (Paper No. 7C) was rejected.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the application filed by appellants under Section 28A(3) of Land Acquisition Act was decided ex-parte against the appellants by Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Bhadohi at Gyanpur, vide judgment and order dated 30.10.2015. It is further submitted that the appellants were never heard by reference court and the said application was decided in absence of appellants and their counsel. The appellants had no knowledge about the order 30.10.2015 prior to 23.01.2016. After having knowledge about the order dated 30.10.2015, the appellants had moved an application under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. (Paper No. 7C) along with delay condonation application for recalling of order dated 30.10.2015. The delay condonation application was rejected by the authority below without considering the explanation of delay.
Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.
The authority below has recorded the finding that the application under Section 28A(3) of Land Acquisition Act being L.A.R. Case No. 12 of 2006 was decided after hearing counsel for both the
parties and the order was passed on merits. The appellants had full knowledge about the judgment dated 30.10.2015 as the order was passed after hearing counsel for the appellants.
The finding recorded by the reference court in respect of non maintainability of application under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C., is based on materials which were available on record and there is no illegality in any manner. No ground for interference is made out. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed .
Order Date :- 16.7.2024 sailesh
Digitally signed by :- SAILESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether rejection of application under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. recalling an order decided after hearing counsel admits no ground for interference.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Arjun Prasad and 5 others
Collector/ Special Land Acquisition Officer Joint Committee Bhadohi
Vipin Chandra Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
