Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
LA.APP. 150/2011
UNION OF INDIA Appellant
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Advocate
LA.APP. 150/2011
UNION OF INDIA Appellant
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Advocate
VERSUS
GULSHAN POPLI & ANR. / Respondents
Through: Ms. Kamlesh Uniyal, Advocate.
Through: Ms. Kamlesh Uniyal, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
09.05.2012 CM No. 5238/2011 (u/O 41 R 3 A r/w Sec. 151 CPC)
The delay is of69 days' in filing the accompanying appeal.
Notice.
Ms. Kamelsh Uniyal, Advocate, accepts notice of the application on behalf ofrespondents.
The reasons disclosed in Paragraph No. 3 of the application do not disclose gross negligence, therefore, the delay is condoned.
Application is disposed of
09.05.2012 CM No. 5238/2011 (u/O 41 R 3 A r/w Sec. 151 CPC)
The delay is of69 days' in filing the accompanying appeal.
Notice.
Ms. Kamelsh Uniyal, Advocate, accepts notice of the application on behalf ofrespondents.
The reasons disclosed in Paragraph No. 3 of the application do not disclose gross negligence, therefore, the delay is condoned.
Application is disposed of
LA.APP. 150/2011
This appeal pertains to acquisition of land of the respondents, situated in Village- Masoodabad, which stood acquired vide to Notification of 5'^ August, 2003, under Section 4 ofthe LandAcquisition Act, 1894.
Counsel for the appellant concedes that the aforesaid
Notification of 5^^ August, 2003 pertaining to the village in
LA.APP No. 150/2011 Page 1 /y 2012:DHC:9626 question has been already dealt with by this Court in LA.APP. NO. 421/2010, 'Suresh Prasad @ Hari Kishan Vs. Union ofIndia &
Ors.', rendered on 14^^ March, 2012 and in view thereof, this appeal has to be indeed dismissed.
Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed in limini, with no orders as to costs.
MAY 09, 2012 rs LA.APP No. 150/2011 IL OAUR)
JUDGE
Page 2 2012:DHC:9626
This appeal pertains to acquisition of land of the respondents, situated in Village- Masoodabad, which stood acquired vide to Notification of 5'^ August, 2003, under Section 4 ofthe LandAcquisition Act, 1894.
Counsel for the appellant concedes that the aforesaid
Notification of 5^^ August, 2003 pertaining to the village in
LA.APP No. 150/2011 Page 1 /y 2012:DHC:9626 question has been already dealt with by this Court in LA.APP. NO. 421/2010, 'Suresh Prasad @ Hari Kishan Vs. Union ofIndia &
Ors.', rendered on 14^^ March, 2012 and in view thereof, this appeal has to be indeed dismissed.
Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed in limini, with no orders as to costs.
MAY 09, 2012 rs LA.APP No. 150/2011 IL OAUR)
JUDGE
Page 2 2012:DHC:9626
JUDGMENT