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


Panna Lal v. State Of U.P. And Another - WRIT - C No. 41562 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 12899 (3 August 2006)


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).


Hon'ble A.K.Yog

Hon'ble R.K. Rastogi,J.

While hearing this petition on behalf of  Panna Lal as fresh matter, we found that application under section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act ( referred to as the Act ) filed way  back in 2001 is sought to be kept pending under Government Order dated 13.5.2001(Annexure 5 to the writ petition ). The said  Government Order has been issued in view of the decision of  the Apex Court in the 'State of Maharashtra Vs. Manakchand  Pyarmal and others' (1996) 1 Supreme Court Cases 297.

In the aforesaid Apex Court case  award on the basis of which enhanced compensation was claimed under section 28-A of the Act  was challenged  by filing an appeal which was admitted  and interim stay order was passed. Taking advantage of the aforesaid Government Order  application of the petitioner in instant petition claiming enhanced compensation has been directed to be kept pending on the ground that against the award  granting  enhanced compensation ( on the basis of which the petitioner claims enhanced compensation under section 28-A of the Act ) appeal has been filed in this  Court along with section 5 application, which is   defective. On behalf of the petitioner it is argued that  said appeal cannot be treated   as pending. In view of the aforesaid submissions we sent for the record of the  First Appeal  no. 861 of 2003 ( Defective) ( State of U.P. Vs. Luxmi Shanker and others). In the said defective First Appeal filed on behalf of  the State of U.P. a Division Bench of this Court  had issued notice on 16.9.2003 and directed  the case to be listed immediately after two months. Why the Registry did not list  it is not known and also nothing is available on record  in this regard.

The interesting feature of the case is that  no  steps  have been taken  for serving the unserved respondents  for inviting objections on section 5 application. The order dated 16.9.2006 clearly mandated  for serving notice  on the unserved  respondents by R.P.A.D. returnable at an early date. The State Government cannot  take  advantage  of  its own latches and carelessness. In that view of the matter we direct  the said defective First Appeal no. 861 of  2003, (State of U.P. Vs. Luxmi Shanker and others)  to be listed  along with the present writ petition no.41562 of 2006 ( Panna Lal Vs. The State of U.P. and another).

Let this petition be listed/put up along with the aforesaid appeal tomorrow.

Sri Vishnu Pratap Singh and Sri P.P. Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel appearing  for the State Government take notice of the order passed today.


RPPWP. 41562/06


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.