W. P. (C) No. 2093 of 2009. Case: Ashok Kumar Vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors.. Jharkhand High Court

Case NumberW. P. (C) No. 2093 of 2009
CounselFor Appellant: Pravin Kumar Rana, Adv. and For Respondents: Vineet Prakash, J.C. to S.C. (L&C)
JudgesAparesh Kumar Singh, J.
IssueConstitution of India - Article 227
Judgement DateJanuary 25, 2017
CourtJharkhand High Court


Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.

  1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

  2. Petitioner and respondent No. 6 both of whom claim to be the son of Badri Vishal Sao, an awardee in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 1/89, 2/89, 3/89 and 4/89, award dated 30th August, 1990/15th September, 1990, are before this Court in the present writ application. Petitioner has sought compensation in respect of land acquired measuring an area 0.69 Acres of Khata Nos. 1 and 2, Plot Nos. 17, 41 and 40 measuring an area 1.90 Acres of Khata Nos. 2, 27 and 37, Plot No. 586/1, 307, measuring an Area 0.07 Acres of Khata No. 72, plot No. 309-P and measuring an area 35 decimals of Khata No. 55, Plot No. 575 of Village-Chana Kallam said to be the subject matter of the acquisition proceeding. After the decision of Land Acquisition Judge vide order dated 30th August, 1990, Badri Vishal Sao father of the petitioner preferred first appeal before this Court being First Appeal Nos. 30, 31 and 32 of 1998(R), which was dismissed vide order dated 19th October, 2001 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court observing as follows:

    So, in my opinion, there is no reason why application for obtaining certified copies, instead of having been filed immediately after the impugned judgment was passed, was filed after more than 7 years.

    In order to substantiate his claim for enhancement of compensation amount, appellant failed to produce any sale deed of the relevant period and adduced only oral evidence. However, the court below enhanced the compensation amount, fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, suitably.

    As such, it appears that the appellant was not very serious in the matter from the very beginning. The appellant has miserably failed to explain the inordinate delay of more than 7 years. Hence, the petitions for condonation of delay are rejected. Consequently, memorandum of these three appeals [F.A. Nos. 30, 31 and 32 of 1998(R)] stand rejected, as barred by time.

  3. The execution cases were filed in 2005 being Execution Case Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 of 2005 thereafter before the court of Sub-Judge, 1, Gharwa. This was apparently beyond 12 years of limitation period for execution of decree, which was prepared in land acquisition cases in the year 1990. Surprisingly, though the awardee, Badri Vishal Sao was alive, no execution proceedings were initiated by him rather by the present petitioner claiming to be his legal heir. It has also been recorded in the impugned order passed in Execution...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT