Full Text
Translation output
~O
% 16.05.2011
Present: Mr. Ashish Tanwar, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. S.K. Rout, Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Mr. Digvijay Rai, Advocate for the respondent No.2.
C.M. No.18351/09 (condonation of delay) in L.A. Appeal No.632/09
There is no opposition to this application for condonation of delay. Delay of 521 days in filing the appeal is therefore condoned.
Application stands disposed of.
+ L.A. Appeal No.632/09
The only limited challenge by means of this appeal is that
• vhereas the main
% 16.05.2011
Present: Mr. Ashish Tanwar, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. S.K. Rout, Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Mr. Digvijay Rai, Advocate for the respondent No.2.
C.M. No.18351/09 (condonation of delay) in L.A. Appeal No.632/09
There is no opposition to this application for condonation of delay. Delay of 521 days in filing the appeal is therefore condoned.
Application stands disposed of.
+ L.A. Appeal No.632/09
The only limited challenge by means of this appeal is that
• vhereas the main
JUDGMENT
denies the statutory benefit of Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, however, in the operative portion by mistake this relief has been allowed.
In my opinion, the Union of India has clearly wasted unnecessary
Court fee in filing of the appeal inasmuch as the Union of India could have as well filed an application under Section 152 CPC for correction of the judgment in such facts. In any case, in view of the obvious error, I accept the appeal and correct the impugned judgment by holding that the petitioners in the reference court and respondents 1(1) to 1(3) herein will not be entitled to the statutory benefit of Section 23(1A). The impugned judgment is therefore corrected/modified to this extent.
• 4 Appeal is accordingly disposed of. Decree sheet be prepared by
4 the trial Court. Copy of this order be sent to the trial court.
MAY 16, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
2011:DHC:12551
In my opinion, the Union of India has clearly wasted unnecessary
Court fee in filing of the appeal inasmuch as the Union of India could have as well filed an application under Section 152 CPC for correction of the judgment in such facts. In any case, in view of the obvious error, I accept the appeal and correct the impugned judgment by holding that the petitioners in the reference court and respondents 1(1) to 1(3) herein will not be entitled to the statutory benefit of Section 23(1A). The impugned judgment is therefore corrected/modified to this extent.
• 4 Appeal is accordingly disposed of. Decree sheet be prepared by
4 the trial Court. Copy of this order be sent to the trial court.
MAY 16, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
2011:DHC:12551