BACHHITTAR SINGH Vs. COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION, TALWARA TOWNSHIP
LAWS(HPH)-1981-11-10
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on
November 02,1981
BACHHITTAR SINGH
Appellant
VERSUS
COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION, TALWARA TOWNSHIP
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
PHUMAN AND OTHERS V. THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]UNION OF INDIA V. SOMALIA ETC [REFERRED TO]
R. P. CONDUIT MANUFACTURING CO. V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
BOMBAY GAS CO LIMITED VS. GOPAL BHIVA [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD VS. VASUDEV ANANT BHIDE [REFERRED TO]
RAM PIARI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ALIHUSEIN ABBASBHAI VS. COLLECTOR PANCHMAHALS [REFERRED TO]
RAMNIBAS JHUNJHUNWALLA VS. BENARASHI L JHUNJHUNWALLA [REFERRED TO]
PULLAMMA VS. ADDITIONAL SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL KARIM S/O ABDUL HAKIM VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF W B VS. DWIJENDRA CHANDRA SEN [REFERRED TO]
BHADAR MUNDA VS. DHUCHUA ORAON [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM SHANKAR SAHAI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
HANSRAJ GUPTA VS. DEHRA DUN-MUSSOORIE ELECTRIC TRAMWAY CO LTD [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION NHPC VS. KHEWA RAM [LAWS(HPH)-2007-1-29] [REFERRED TO]JUDGEMENT
V.D.MISRA,J. -
(1.)Whether Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Limitation Act apply to proceedings before a court on reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act? is the question which arises for determination.
(2.)The facts in the three cases are similar. In all these cases the claimants not being satisfied with the compensation awarded to them by the Collector asked the Collector to make references to the court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (the Act). The references were duly made. During the pendency of the proceedings before the court, the claimants died. Applications under Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the Code) for bringing the legal representatives on record were made. These applications were contested. It was inter alia contended that the applications were not made within limitation. The court found that the applications were barred as having not been made within the time allowed under the Limitation Act. The applications were dismissed and it was declared that the references have abated.
(3.)When these revisions came up before me I found that High Courts have given conflicting decision on the question. I, therefore, decided to refer the matters to a larger Bench and that is now these matters are before us.
;
(2.)The facts in the three cases are similar. In all these cases the claimants not being satisfied with the compensation awarded to them by the Collector asked the Collector to make references to the court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (the Act). The references were duly made. During the pendency of the proceedings before the court, the claimants died. Applications under Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the Code) for bringing the legal representatives on record were made. These applications were contested. It was inter alia contended that the applications were not made within limitation. The court found that the applications were barred as having not been made within the time allowed under the Limitation Act. The applications were dismissed and it was declared that the references have abated.
(3.)When these revisions came up before me I found that High Courts have given conflicting decision on the question. I, therefore, decided to refer the matters to a larger Bench and that is now these matters are before us.
;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.