Disposed

In Charge Hr Er ONGC Ltd. v. Rani Bala Debnath and Ors.

Tripura HC15 May 2017LA.App./5/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order corrects an inadvertent mistake in paragraph 17 of a judgment dated 15.05.2017. The court directed the Registry to substitute paragraph 17 to apply a uniform compensation rate of Rs. 5,00,000/- per kani under Section 28A of the LA Act, 1894, and authorize corresponding corrections to the decree.

What did the court decide?

The Registry is directed to substitute paragraph 17 of the judgment dated 15.05.2017 and correct the decree.

In Charge Hr Er ONGC Ltd. Vs Rani Bala Debnath and Ors. — Tripura HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Noting by Officer or Serial Date Advocate No	Office notes, reports, orders or Proceedings with signature
06.02.2018	IA 02 OF 2018 IN LA APP. 05 OF 2017 (D/O) BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA Heard Mr. R Dasgupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. By this petition, some inadvertent mistakes that have crept in the judgment dated 15.05.2017 delivered in LA Appeal No. 05/2017 are sought to be corrected. In paragraph 17 of the said judgment the error has crept into. In view of that, paragraph 17 has to be substituted by the following paragraph: “[17] Thus, Mr. Dasgupta learned counsel appearing for the appellant is correct when he contended that in accordance with the Principles of Section 28A of the LA Act,1894, the uniform rate should have been awarded. Thus, the land value is reduced to Rs.5,00,000/- per kani for the nal class of land in terms of the judgment dated 28.07.2016 [In-charge, HR-ER, ONGC Ltd. vs. Sri Abinash Chandra Sarkar and Others]. On the basis of the said rate, the compensation shall be drawn giving all the components under Section 23(1A) and (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.” Registry is directed to make necessary corrections in the original judgment and order by authority of this order. As an abundant caution, this order shall also form part of the judgment and order dated 15.05.2017. It goes without saying that if in view of this correction, the decree is required to be corrected, the Registry is authorised to correct the decree accordingly. A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. Dasgupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. JUDGE

Noting by Officer or Serial Date
Advocate No

Office notes, reports, orders or
Proceedings with signature

06.02.2018

IA 02 OF 2018 IN
LA APP. 05 OF 2017 (D/O)
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
Heard Mr. R Dasgupta, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner.
By this petition, some inadvertent mistakes that
have crept in the judgment dated 15.05.2017
delivered in LA Appeal No. 05/2017 are sought to be
corrected. In paragraph 17 of the said judgment the
error has crept into.
In view of that, paragraph 17 has to be
substituted by the following paragraph:
“[17]
Thus,
Mr.
Dasgupta
learned
counsel
appearing for the appellant is correct when he contended
that in accordance with the Principles of Section 28A of
the LA Act,1894, the uniform rate should have been
awarded. Thus, the land value is reduced to Rs.5,00,000/-
per kani for the nal class of land in terms of the judgment
dated 28.07.2016 [In-charge, HR-ER, ONGC Ltd. vs. Sri
Abinash Chandra Sarkar and Others]. On the basis of the
said rate, the compensation shall be drawn giving all the
components under Section 23(1A) and (2) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894.”
Registry
is
directed
to
make
necessary
corrections in the original judgment and order by
authority of this order.
As an abundant caution, this order shall also
form part of the judgment and order dated
15.05.2017.
It goes without saying that if in view of this
correction, the decree is required to be corrected,
the Registry is authorised to correct the decree
accordingly.
A copy of this order be furnished to Mr.
Dasgupta, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner.
JUDGE

¶2

lodh

¶3

Page 1 of 1

In Charge Hr Er ONGC Ltd. v. Rani Bala Debnath and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

In Charge Hr Er ONGC Ltd. v. Rani Bala Debnath and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Debabrata Acharjee and Anr. Vs The State Of Tripura and 12 Ors.

Uma Bhowmik Vs the D. M and Collector and Ors.

Swapan Ch. Debroy Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Shibu Debbarma Vs State Of Tripura And Another

Bharati Hexacom Ltd. Vs U.O.I. and 3 Ors.

The National Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Namita Saha and 2 Ors.