BHIKHABHAI CHHITABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(GJH)-1988-3-16
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on March 08,1988

Bhikhubhai Chhitubhai And Others Appellant
VERSUS
State of Gujarat and Another Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MOHAN VASTA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [FOLLOWED]



Cited Judgements :-

ARUMUGHAM VS. T L RADHAKRISHNAN [LAWS(MAD)-1996-8-70] [REFERRED TO]
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VS. CHANDRASINH NARSINH HEIRS OF DECD CHANDRASINH NARSINH [LAWS(GJH)-1999-4-52] [REFERRED TO]
KARUVELIL ANNA VS. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR L A K A S [LAWS(KER)-1988-10-5] [DISTINGUISHED]
MANGILAL VS. DISTRICT TRADE AND INDUSTRIES [LAWS(MPH)-2020-5-86] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

P.R.GOKULAKRISHNAN - (1.)Rule. Mr. Hawa waives service of the rule on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the learned Advocates all these matters are taken up to-day.
(2.)All these Special Civil Applications are filed for quashing and setting aside the order at Annexure `A to the Special Civil Application and also to direct the respondent No. 2 in each of these petition to make a reference to the District Court as prayed for by the petitioners by issuing a suitable writ direction or order. All these matters pertain to the land acquisition effected by respondent No. 2. After the award was passed the petitioners in each of these petitions wanted the matter to be referred under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the District Court for the purpose of getting enhanced compensation. The respondent No. 2 rejected the application on the ground that the application for reference under Sec. 18 is time-barred and he has no power to condone the delay in preferring such an application in order to refer the matter to the District Court under Sec. 18 of the Act.
(3.)As far as the reasons for the delay which comes to nearly four months in each of these cases it has been stated that the Advocate who was representing the petitioners in each of these petitions was laid up and his whole family members including son and wife were also laid up with fever and that is why the application for reference was not made within the period prescribed under Sec. 18 of the Act. Even-though the reasons stated are sufficient and acceptable the respondent No. 2 was not able to exercise his jurisdiction on the premise that he has no jurisdiction to condone the delay.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.