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


Land Acquisition Officer v. Brijendra Kishore - FIRST APPEAL No. 17 of 1969 [2006] RD-AH 13453 (14 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).



FIRST APPEAL No. 17 of 1960

Land Acquisition Officer, through

Collector, Allahabad


Brijendra Kishore and others


Hon'ble Prakash Krishna, J.

Raising a short controversy the above appeal has been filed by the Land Acquisition Officer through the Collector, Allahabad against the judgment and decree dated 26-7-1968 passed by II Additional District Judge in L.A. Case No.23 of 1967.

Certain piece of land was acquired by the State Government for setting up of State Technical Institute in Plot nos.8 and 18. Certain walls are situated in the aforesaid two plots and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded a sum of Rs.2100/- for the well in Plot no.8 and Rs.1400/- for the wall in Plot no.18. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid award, a Reference petition was filed by Brijendra Kishore, which come up for consideration before the Court below. The Court below allowed the reference application and determined compensation in respect of two walls in question at Rs.7272/-with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of possession. The reference Court also ordered payment of enhanced compensation to Indra Kishore, who is brother of Brijendra Kishore, being the co- owner. The only grievance of the State of Uttar Pradesh is that since no reference application was filed by Indura Kishore, therefore, the reference Court was not justified in enhancing the compensation payable to Indra Kishore also. The enhancement of compensation with regard to the aforesaid two wells was not disputed by learned Standing counsel in the present appeal.

I have given careful consideration to the aforesaid sole submission of the learned Standing counsel. It may be noted here that Indra Kishore in whose favour the award has been passed by the Civil Court has not been impleaded as a party in the appeal. In absence of impleadment of Indra Kishore as one of the respondent is is not possible to adjudicate the aforesaid issue in his absence. Indra Kishore was a necessary party in the appeal. Moreover to the fact that the matter is more than 35 years old and only small amount is in dispute, it is not desirable to permit the learned Standing counsel to implead Indra Kishore at this stage in this appeal.  There is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Dt: 14   August, 2006



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.