Allowed

The COMMANDANT.62BN.BSF,SRIGAN v. Rajendra Singh and Ors.

Rajasthan HC12 Jan 2015SAW/60/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the special appeal against a Single Judge's order setting aside a decision to bar a reference application due to limitation. The court quashed the impugned order, emphasising that the Single Judge was correct in directing examination on merits of the application filed within the limitation period and directed remand to the Land Acquisition Officer.

What did the court decide?

The quashing of the 02.07.1990 communication is granted. The matter is remitted to the Land Acquisition Officer (SDO Shri ganganagar) to examine and decide the 18.02.1989 application on merits within

The COMMANDANT.62BN.BSF,SRIGAN Vs Rajendra Singh and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

SAW - 60 / 1 2

¶2

( 1)

¶3

I n The Hi gh Cour t of Judi cat ur e f or Raj ast han Jai pur Bench, Jai pur O R D E R D. B. Ci vi l Speci al Appeal ( Wr i t ) No. 60/ 2012

¶4

Dat e : 12/ 01/ 2015

¶5

Hon' bl e Mr . Just i ce Aj ay Rast ogi Hon' bl e Mr . Just i ce J. K. Ranka

¶6

Mr . Hanuman Choudhar y Adv. , f or appel l ant . Ms. Ani t a Agr awal Adv. , f or r espondent .

¶7

I nst ant appeal has been pr ef er r ed agai nst or der of t he l ear ned Si ngl e Judge dt . 06. 03. 2006.

¶8

The f act s whi ch ar e r el evant f or our pur pose & di sposal of t he i nst ant appeal and can be not i ced f r om t he r ecor d ar e t hat t he acqui si t i on pr oceedi ngs came t o be i ni t i at ed f or t he subj ect l and i n quest i on and f i nal l y t he Awar d came t o be passed by t he Land Acqui si t i on Of f i cer on 06. 12. 1988 and i mmedi at el y af t er passi ng of t he Awar d appl i cat i on dt . 18. 02. 1989 f or maki ng cer t ai n cor r ect i ons i n t he Awar d was f i l ed by t he r espondent u/ S 13A of t he Land Acqui si t i on Act t o t he Di st r i ct Col l ect or , Shr i ganganagar and i t appear s t hat no act i on was t aken by t he concer ned compet ent aut hor i t y and f i nal l y when t he mat t er was enqui r ed f r om t he of f i ce of Hon' bl e Pr i me Mi ni st er obvi ousl y on compl ai nt made by t he r espondent , t he St at e Gover nment consi der t he appl i cat i on t o be bar r ed by l i mi t at i on vi de t hei r l et t er dt . 11. 05. 1990 and i nf or mat i on was sent t o t he r espondent t hr ough t he Land Acqui si t i on Of f i cer ( SDO- Shr i ganganagar ) dt . 02. 07. 1990, however , l i ber t y was gr ant ed t o t he r espondent t hat t hey can al ways i ni t i at e i ndependent pr oceedi ngs of maki ng r ef er ence u/ S 18 of t he Act .

¶9

SAW - 60 / 1 2

¶10

( 2)

¶11

The appl i cat i on whi ch was f i l ed by t he r espondent u/ S 13A of t he Act and f or maki ng r ef er ence u/ S 18 of t he Act , 1894 ar e i ndependent pr oceedi ngs. I t i s not t he case of t he appel l ant t hat appl i cat i on dt . 18. 02. 1989 was not submi t t ed by t he r espondent i n hi s of f i ce and t hat bei ng so i ndi sput abl y t he appl i cat i on f i l ed by t he r espondent u/ S 13A of t he Act was wi t hi n l i mi t at i on.

¶12

The or der of r ej ect i on on t he pr emi se t hat t he appl i cat i on f i l ed by t he r espondent u/ S 13A of t he Act was bar r ed by l i mi t at i on came t o be chal l enged by f i l i ng a wr i t pet i t i on bef or e t he l ear ned Si ngl e Judge. Af t er t aki ng i nt o consi der at i on t he mat er i al on r ecor d t he l ear ned Si ngl e Judge i n i t s or der i mpugned dt . 06. 03. 2006 obser ved t hat once t he appl i cat i on was f ur ni shed/ submi t t ed i ndi sput abl y wi t hi n t he per i od of l i mi t at i on on 18. 02. 1989 f or maki ng necessar y cor r ect i ons as r equi r ed i n t he Awar d dt . 06. 12. 1988 t hat ought t o have been exami ned on mer i t s.

¶13

Af t er hear i ng counsel f or t he par t i es and t aki ng not e of t he f act s whi ch ar e br ought t o our not i ce we do not f i nd any er r or bei ng commi t t ed by t he l ear ned Si ngl e Judge i n passi ng or der i mpugned whi ch may r equi r e i nt er f er ence by t hi s Cour t but we may l i ke t o add t hat quashi ng of communi cat i on dt . 02. 07. 1990 i ssued f r om t he of f i ce of Land Acqui si t i on Of f i cer ( SDO- Shr i ganganagar ) may not i n i t sel f be suf f i ci ent . We woul d l i ke t o f ur t her add t hat t he mat t er be r emi t t ed back t o t he concer ned compet ent aut hor i t y/ Land Acqui si t i on Of f i cer ( SDO-

¶14

SAW - 60 / 1 2

¶15

( 3)

¶16

Shr i ganganagar ) who may exami ne and deci de t he appl i cat i on f ur ni shed by t he r espondent on 18. 02. 1989 af t er af f or di ng oppor t uni t y t o t he par t i es on mer i t s. Let t he par t i es may r ecor d t hei r pr esence bef or e t he Land Acqui si t i on Of f i cer ( SDOShr i ganganagar ) on 23. 02. 2015. Si nce i t i s an ol d mat t er we consi der i t appr opr i at e t hat af t er t he par t i es put t hei r pr esence, l et t he appl i cat i on f i l ed u/ S 13A of t he Act be deci ded wi t hi n a per i od of si x mont hs t her eaf t er .

¶17

Wi t h t hi s cl ar i f i cat i on, t he appeal st ands di sposed of .

¶18

( J. K. Ranka) , J. ( Aj ay Rast ogi ) , J.

¶19

VS/

¶20

Certificate - All corrections have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed/ Vijay Singh Shekhawat/ PAJW

The COMMANDANT.62BN.BSF,SRIGAN v. Rajendra Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The COMMANDANT.62BN.BSF,SRIGAN v. Rajendra Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Pareek and Anr. Vs Rural Development and Panchyat Ors.

Raghuveer Vs State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.

Jai Shiv Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Rohitash Vs State Home Departmentors

Om Prakash Yadav Vs Chairman and Managing Director

Prayag Singh Rauthore Vs the Managing Director Ajmer andA