Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER versus SHEESH PAL SINGH & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


State Of U.P. & Another v. Sheesh Pal Singh & Others - FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 320 of 2000 [2007] RD-AH 15957 (24 September 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Hon. Pankaj Mithal, J.

Heard Sri G.K. Pandey, learned Standing counsel and Dr. Hridyawati Mishra for the claimants-respondents.

This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.3.1999 passed by the reference court in LAR No. 166 of 1998 (Sheeshpal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others). By the said judgment and order of the reference court a total number of 14 land acquisition references were decided in which LAR No. 155 of 1998 (Lokman Vs. State of U.P. and others) was the leading reference. Against the judgment and order passed in the leading case, a defective First Appeal No. (324) of 2000 was filed again with the delay of 355 days. The application to condone the delay in the above appeal was rejected by the court vide order dated 22.9.2004 and it was held that the explanation given for the delay in filing the appeal is not satisfactory.

This appeal has also been presented beyond time by 358 days along with an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. The facts and the reasons stated in the present application for condoning the delay are similar and identical to the facts and reasons contained in the delay condonation application filed in First Appeal No. (324) of 2000. Since the said facts and reasons were not found to be satisfactory in First Appeal No. (324) of 2000, to avoid conflicting orders this application for condonation of delay is also rejected for the same reasons as contained in the order dated 22.9.2004 passed in First Appeal No. (324) of 2000.

Consequently the appeal is dismissed as time barred.

Dt. 24.9.2007

S.S./ (320)/2000


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.