Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM AVTAR SHARMA & ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' SECY. URBAN DEVELOPMENT & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Avtar Sharma & Another v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Urban Development & Ors. - WRIT - C No. 35983 of 2003 [2005] RD-AH 1921 (12 August 2005)

 

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 OF ALLAHABAD

Court no. 1

Civil Misc. Writ Petition  no. 35983 of 2003

                          Ram Autar  Sharma and another.

 

    Versus

                      State of U.P. And others.

                            ---

Hon'ble Yatindra Singh, J.

Hon'ble R.K. Rastogi,J.

The petitioners  purchased 255 Sq. Yards land  of plot no. 115 situate in village Kisanpur Pargna & Tehsil Kol district Aligarh through sale-deed  dated 14.2.1991. Subsequently, Aligarh Development Authority ( the  authority ) acquired   about  40.75 Acres land which included  the land in dispute. Notification under section 4 of the  Land Acquisition Act ( the Act ) in this respect was published on 20.2.1997 and thereafter notification under section 6 of the Act was published on 19.1.1998. The award was made on 2.7.2001. The petitioners filed an application on 29.7.2002 for referring the case  under section 18  of the Act. This application was rejected on 2.6.2003 by respondent no.3 as barred by time, hence, this writ petition.

We have heard  counsel for the petitioners and  the Standing Counsel for the respondents.  

The petitioners in para 10 of the writ petition have stated that the notices dated 30.5.2002 were issued  under section 12 (2) of the Act  and these notices were served upon them on 20.6.2002. There is no counter affidavit  on behalf of the State. However, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the  Authority but this fact that notices were issued to the petitioners and were served upon them on 20.6.2002 has not been denied. As such there is no reason to disbelieve the averments made by the petitioners. The application was filed by the petitioners within six weeks from the date of service of notice. As such it cannot be said  that the application was barred by time. In view of this, the order dated 2.6.2003 is quashed and the respondent no.3 is directed to refer the case  of the petitioners to civil court under section 18 of the Act.

With these observations the writ petition is allowed.

Dated:12.8.200

RPP.

Court no. 1

Civil Misc. Writ Petition  no. 35983 of 2003

                          Ram Autar  Sharma and another.

 

    Versus

                      State of U.P. And others.

                            ---

Hon'ble Yatindra Singh, J.

Hon'ble R.K. Rastogi,J.

The petitioners  purchased 255 Sq. Yards land  of plot no. 115 situate in village Kisanpur Pargna & Tehsil Kol district Aligarh through sale-deed  dated 14.2.1991. Subsequently, Aligarh Development Authority ( the  authority ) acquired   about  40.75 Acres land which included  the land in dispute. Notification under section 4 of the  Land Acquisition Act ( the Act ) in this respect was published on 20.2.1997 and thereafter notification under section 6 of the Act was published on 19.1.1998. The award was made on 2.7.2001. The petitioners filed an application on 29.7.2002 for referring the case  under section 18  of the Act. This application was rejected on 2.6.2003 by respondent no.3 as barred by time, hence, this writ petition.

We have heard  counsel for the petitioners and  the Standing Counsel for the respondents.  

The petitioners in para 10 of the writ petition have stated that the notices dated 30.5.2002 were issued  under section 12 (2) of the Act  and these notices were served upon them on 20.6.2002. There is no counter affidavit  on behalf of the State. However, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the  Authority but this fact that notices were issued to the petitioners and were served upon them on 20.6.2002 has not been denied. As such there is no reason to disbelieve the averments made by the petitioners. The application was filed by the petitioners within six weeks from the date of service of notice. As such it cannot be said  that the application was barred by time. In view of this, the order dated 2.6.2003 is quashed and the respondent no.3 is directed to refer the case  of the petitioners to civil court under section 18 of the Act.

With these observations the writ petition is allowed.

Dated:12.8.200

RPP.

Court no. 1

Civil Misc. Writ Petition  no. 35983 of 2003

                          Ram Autar  Sharma and another.

 

    Versus

                      State of U.P. And others.

                            ---

Hon'ble Yatindra Singh, J.

Hon'ble R.K. Rastogi,J.

The petitioners  purchased 255 Sq. Yards land  of plot no. 115 situate in village Kisanpur Pargna & Tehsil Kol district Aligarh through sale-deed  dated 14.2.1991. Subsequently, Aligarh Development Authority ( the  authority ) acquired   about  40.75 Acres land which included  the land in dispute. Notification under section 4 of the  Land Acquisition Act ( the Act ) in this respect was published on 20.2.1997 and thereafter notification under section 6 of the Act was published on 19.1.1998. The award was made on 2.7.2001. The petitioners filed an application on 29.7.2002 for referring the case  under section 18  of the Act. This application was rejected on 2.6.2003 by respondent no.3 as barred by time, hence, this writ petition.

We have heard  counsel for the petitioners and  the Standing Counsel for the respondents.  

The petitioners in para 10 of the writ petition have stated that the notices dated 30.5.2002 were issued  under section 12 (2) of the Act  and these notices were served upon them on 20.6.2002. There is no counter affidavit  on behalf of the State. However, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the  Authority but this fact that notices were issued to the petitioners and were served upon them on 20.6.2002 has not been denied. As such there is no reason to disbelieve the averments made by the petitioners. The application was filed by the petitioners within six weeks from the date of service of notice. As such it cannot be said  that the application was barred by time. In view of this, the order dated 2.6.2003 is quashed and the respondent no.3 is directed to refer the case  of the petitioners to civil court under section 18 of the Act.

With these observations the writ petition is allowed.

Dated:12.8.200

RPP.

Court no. 1

Civil Misc. Writ Petition  no. 35983 of 2003

                          Ram Autar  Sharma and another.

 

    Versus

                      State of U.P. And others.

                            ---

Hon'ble Yatindra Singh, J.

Hon'ble R.K. Rastogi,J.

The petitioners  purchased 255 Sq. Yards land  of plot no. 115 situate in village Kisanpur Pargna & Tehsil Kol district Aligarh through sale-deed  dated 14.2.1991. Subsequently, Aligarh Development Authority ( the  authority ) acquired   about  40.75 Acres land which included  the land in dispute. Notification under section 4 of the  Land Acquisition Act ( the Act ) in this respect was published on 20.2.1997 and thereafter notification under section 6 of the Act was published on 19.1.1998. The award was made on 2.7.2001. The petitioners filed an application on 29.7.2002 for referring the case  under section 18  of the Act. This application was rejected on 2.6.2003 by respondent no.3 as barred by time, hence, this writ petition.

We have heard  counsel for the petitioners and  the Standing Counsel for the respondents.  

The petitioners in para 10 of the writ petition have stated that the notices dated 30.5.2002 were issued  under section 12 (2) of the Act  and these notices were served upon them on 20.6.2002. There is no counter affidavit  on behalf of the State. However, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the  Authority but this fact that notices were issued to the petitioners and were served upon them on 20.6.2002 has not been denied. As such there is no reason to disbelieve the averments made by the petitioners. The application was filed by the petitioners within six weeks from the date of service of notice. As such it cannot be said  that the application was barred by time. In view of this, the order dated 2.6.2003 is quashed and the respondent no.3 is directed to refer the case  of the petitioners to civil court under section 18 of the Act.

With these observations the writ petition is allowed.

Dated:12.8.200

RPP.

Court no. 1

Civil Misc. Writ Petition  no. 35983 of 2003

                          Ram Autar  Sharma and another.

 

    Versus

                      State of U.P. And others.

                            ---

Hon'ble Yatindra Singh, J.

Hon'ble R.K. Rastogi,J.

The petitioners  purchased 255 Sq. Yards land  of plot no. 115 situate in village Kisanpur Pargna & Tehsil Kol district Aligarh through sale-deed  dated 14.2.1991. Subsequently, Aligarh Development Authority ( the  authority ) acquired   about  40.75 Acres land which included  the land in dispute. Notification under section 4 of the  Land Acquisition Act ( the Act ) in this respect was published on 20.2.1997 and thereafter notification under section 6 of the Act was published on 19.1.1998. The award was made on 2.7.2001. The petitioners filed an application on 29.7.2002 for referring the case  under section 18  of the Act. This application was rejected on 2.6.2003 by respondent no.3 as barred by time, hence, this writ petition.

We have heard  counsel for the petitioners and  the Standing Counsel for the respondents.  

The petitioners in para 10 of the writ petition have stated that the notices dated 30.5.2002 were issued  under section 12 (2) of the Act  and these notices were served upon them on 20.6.2002. There is no counter affidavit  on behalf of the State. However, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the  Authority but this fact that notices were issued to the petitioners and were served upon them on 20.6.2002 has not been denied. As such there is no reason to disbelieve the averments made by the petitioners. The application was filed by the petitioners within six weeks from the date of service of notice. As such it cannot be said  that the application was barred by time. In view of this, the order dated 2.6.2003 is quashed and the respondent no.3 is directed to refer the case  of the petitioners to civil court under section 18 of the Act.

With these observations the writ petition is allowed.

Dated:12.8.200

RPP.

Court no. 1

Civil Misc. Writ Petition  no. 35983 of 2003

                          Ram Autar  Sharma and another.

 

    Versus

                      State of U.P. And others.

                            ---

Hon'ble Yatindra Singh, J.

Hon'ble R.K. Rastogi,J.

The petitioners  purchased 255 Sq. Yards land  of plot no. 115 situate in village Kisanpur Pargna & Tehsil Kol district Aligarh through sale-deed  dated 14.2.1991. Subsequently, Aligarh Development Authority ( the  authority ) acquired   about  40.75 Acres land which included  the land in dispute. Notification under section 4 of the  Land Acquisition Act ( the Act ) in this respect was published on 20.2.1997 and thereafter notification under section 6 of the Act was published on 19.1.1998. The award was made on 2.7.2001. The petitioners filed an application on 29.7.2002 for referring the case  under section 18  of the Act. This application was rejected on 2.6.2003 by respondent no.3 as barred by time, hence, this writ petition.

We have heard  counsel for the petitioners and  the Standing Counsel for the respondents.  

The petitioners in para 10 of the writ petition have stated that the notices dated 30.5.2002 were issued  under section 12 (2) of the Act  and these notices were served upon them on 20.6.2002. There is no counter affidavit  on behalf of the State. However, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the  Authority but this fact that notices were issued to the petitioners and were served upon them on 20.6.2002 has not been denied. As such there is no reason to disbelieve the averments made by the petitioners. The application was filed by the petitioners within six weeks from the date of service of notice. As such it cannot be said  that the application was barred by time. In view of this, the order dated 2.6.2003 is quashed and the respondent no.3 is directed to refer the case  of the petitioners to civil court under section 18 of the Act.

With these observations the writ petition is allowed.

Dated:12.8.200

RPP.

Court no. 1

Civil Misc. Writ Petition  no. 35983 of 2003

                          Ram Autar  Sharma and another.

 

    Versus

                      State of U.P. And others.

                            ---

Hon'ble Yatindra Singh, J.

Hon'ble R.K. Rastogi,J.

The petitioners  purchased 255 Sq. Yards land  of plot no. 115 situate in village Kisanpur Pargna & Tehsil Kol district Aligarh through sale-deed  dated 14.2.1991. Subsequently, Aligarh Development Authority ( the  authority ) acquired   about  40.75 Acres land which included  the land in dispute. Notification under section 4 of the  Land Acquisition Act ( the Act ) in this respect was published on 20.2.1997 and thereafter notification under section 6 of the Act was published on 19.1.1998. The award was made on 2.7.2001. The petitioners filed an application on 29.7.2002 for referring the case  under section 18  of the Act. This application was rejected on 2.6.2003 by respondent no.3 as barred by time, hence, this writ petition.

We have heard  counsel for the petitioners and  the Standing Counsel for the respondents.  

The petitioners in para 10 of the writ petition have stated that the notices dated 30.5.2002 were issued  under section 12 (2) of the Act  and these notices were served upon them on 20.6.2002. There is no counter affidavit  on behalf of the State. However, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the  Authority but this fact that notices were issued to the petitioners and were served upon them on 20.6.2002 has not been denied. As such there is no reason to disbelieve the averments made by the petitioners. The application was filed by the petitioners within six weeks from the date of service of notice. As such it cannot be said  that the application was barred by time. In view of this, the order dated 2.6.2003 is quashed and the respondent no.3 is directed to refer the case  of the petitioners to civil court under section 18 of the Act.

With these observations the writ petition is allowed.

Dated:12.8.200

RPP.

Court no. 1

Civil Misc. Writ Petition  no. 35983 of 2003

                          Ram Autar  Sharma and another.

 

    Versus

                      State of U.P. And others.

                            ---

Hon'ble Yatindra Singh, J.

Hon'ble R.K. Rastogi,J.

The petitioners  purchased 255 Sq. Yards land  of plot no. 115 situate in village Kisanpur Pargna & Tehsil Kol district Aligarh through sale-deed  dated 14.2.1991. Subsequently, Aligarh Development Authority ( the  authority ) acquired   about  40.75 Acres land which included  the land in dispute. Notification under section 4 of the  Land Acquisition Act ( the Act ) in this respect was published on 20.2.1997 and thereafter notification under section 6 of the Act was published on 19.1.1998. The award was made on 2.7.2001. The petitioners filed an application on 29.7.2002 for referring the case  under section 18  of the Act. This application was rejected on 2.6.2003 by respondent no.3 as barred by time, hence, this writ petition.

We have heard  counsel for the petitioners and  the Standing Counsel for the respondents.  

The petitioners in para 10 of the writ petition have stated that the notices dated 30.5.2002 were issued  under section 12 (2) of the Act  and these notices were served upon them on 20.6.2002. There is no counter affidavit  on behalf of the State. However, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the  Authority but this fact that notices were issued to the petitioners and were served upon them on 20.6.2002 has not been denied. As such there is no reason to disbelieve the averments made by the petitioners. The application was filed by the petitioners within six weeks from the date of service of notice. As such it cannot be said  that the application was barred by time. In view of this, the order dated 2.6.2003 is quashed and the respondent no.3 is directed to refer the case  of the petitioners to civil court under section 18 of the Act.

With these observations the writ petition is allowed.

Dated:12.8.200

RPP.


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.