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


Smt. Dinesh Agrawal And Others v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 57286 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 17794 (16 October 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).


Court No.10

             Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 57286 of 2006                        

Smt. Dinesh Agrawal and others.  ... . . . . . . . ...  . .  .  . .Petitioners


State of U.P. and others. . .  . . . . .  . . . .  . . .  . .  . . . .  .   Respondents.


Hon'ble A.K. Yog,J.

Hon'ble R.K.Rastogi,J.

This  is a writ petition for quashing the impugned order dated 12.1.2006 ( Annexure no. 4 to the writ petition ) passed by respondent no.2,  ( the Addl. District Magistrate/Special Land Acquisition Officer, Meerut)  rejecting the petitioners' application under section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned  counsel for the contesting respondents as well as the learned Sanding Counsel.

The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12.1.2006 whereby  the Addl. District Magistrate/Special Land Acquisition Officer, Meerut  has rejected the petitioners' application under section 28-A of the Land Acquisition  Act seeking enhancement of compensation on the basis of   an order passed in 39 other cases vide judgment and order dated 11.5.1992 ( Annexure no.1 to the writ petition ) on the  ground that certified copy of the said  judgment & order was not filed.

In our considered opinion  the Addl. District Magistrate concerned   instead of rejecting the petitioners' application should have afforded an opportunity and granted time to them  to file  certified copy of the said order ( photostat copy of which was already annexed therewith). Rules are meant to advance justice. The requirement of filing certified copy is a procedural requirement.

In this view of the matter, we set aside  the impugned  judgment and order dated 12.1.2006 only to the extent it has rejected  the petitioners' application under section 28-A  of the said Act  on the ground of non-filing of the judgment and order dated 12.5.1992 passed by the III Addl. District Judge, Meerut ( on the basis of which enhancement  of compensation was claimed ). To avoid delay, we direct the petitioners  to file certified copy of  the said order within four weeks  before the  concerned competent authority along with certified copy of this order  and thereafter the concerned  competent authority shall decide the application in accordance with law.

The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.

No order as to costs.

Dated: 16.10.2006



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.