Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Bulandshahar Khurja Development Authority v. Devendra Singh - FIRST APPEAL No. - 272 of 1997 [2007] RD-AH 16477 (9 October 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).


Court No. 27

Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 209254 of 2007

On behalf of

Bulandshahr Khurja Development Authority, Bulandshahr.... Applicant


First Appeal No. 272 of 1997

Bulandshahr Khurja Development Authority, Bulandshahr Vs. Devendra Singh and another


Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

Bulandshahr Khurja Development Authority, Bulandshahr (hereinafter referred to as the 'Development Authority') has filed this application for extending the time to deposit the balance amount as determined by the Executing Court and for a prayer that further proceedings in Execution Case No. 744 of 1995 may remain stayed during the pendency of the present Appeal in this Court.

The Development Authority filed this First Appeal in this Court under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the award made by the Reference Court. The Appeal was admitted and an interim order was passed on 22.2.1998 that until further orders, the operation of the award dated 31.5.1995 shall remain stayed. A stay vacating application was filed by the claimant-respondent No.1 on which an order was passed on 17.7.2002 with the consent of the parties that the execution of the award shall remain stayed, provided the appellant deposits 1/4th of the enhanced amount which shall include market value of land, statutory amount, solatium and interest before the Court concerned within three months. It was further ordered that in case such deposit was made, the claimant shall be entitled to withdraw the amount after furnishing adequate security but in case the condition was not fulfilled, the stay order shall stand automatically vacated. The amount was not deposited and an application was moved by the Development Authority for extending the time to deposit the amount. This Court on 23.1.2003 extended the time by three weeks. It is stated that pursuant to the aforesaid order an amount of Rs. 38,61,507/- was deposited on 13.2.2003. The claimant contended that the amount deposited was less than the amount required to be deposited under the order dated 17.2.2002 as modified by the order dated 23.1.2003 and the Executing Court thereafter found this contention to be correct inasmuch as the amount that was required to be deposited was Rs. 41,60,506.71.

It is in these circumstances that the present application has been moved by the Development Authority seeking permission of this Court to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 2,98,950/- so that further proceedings in the Execution Case may remain stayed.

I have heard Sri Bhupeshwar Dayal, learned counsel for the Development Authority and Sri B.B. Jauhari, learned counsel appearing for claimant-respondent No.1.

Sri Bhupeshwar Dayal, learned counsel for the Development Authority has contended that the short fall was on account of the fact that the Development Authority had not deposited the interest on the amount of solatium and the additional amount under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act.

Learned counsel for the claimant-respondent, however, contended that this was not a bona fide short fall and that even the deposit made by the Development Authority on 20.8.2007 is short of the amount determined by the Executing Court.

Be that as it may, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice to direct that further proceedings in Execution Case No. 744 of 1995 shall remain stayed provided the Development Authority now deposits a further sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- within one month from today. The amount if deposited by the Development Authority and the earlier amount deposited in August, 2007 shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the claimant-respondent on furnishing adequate security as earlier observed by this Court.

The application is, accordingly, disposed of.




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


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 |

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