IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL Nos. 997, 998 and 1021 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE Y.B.BHATT and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.C.PATEL ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF GUJARAT Versus THAKARDA TALAJI BECHARJI -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MS DS PANDIT, AGP for Petitioners MR BG PATEL for Respondent No. 3 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE Y.B.BHATT and MR.JUSTICE M.C.PATEL Date of decision: 14/12/2000 COMMON ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per : MR.JUSTICE Y.B.BHATT) 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. Appeals admitted. Mr. B.G. Patel waives service of notice of Appeal and appears for the respondent - claimants. On a joint request of the learned counsel for the respective parties, we have heard the Appeals today for final hearing. 2. These are Appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act read with Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code at the instance of the State of Gujarat challenging the common judgment and awards passed by the Reference Court in references under Section 18 of the said Act. 3. As a result of the hearing and discussion and a perusal of the impugned judgment and awards, we find that a number of Appeals had been filed from the common judgment and awards, some of which had been heard and disposed of earlier, while the present three Appeals were not dealt with, since at that point of time, applications for condonation of delay were pending. 4. So far as the merits of the present Appeals are concerned, it is common ground that the same would be covered by the earlier decision of this very bench in First Appeal Nos.994, 995, 996, 999 to 1020 and 1022 to 1028 of 1999, by the judgment and order dated 12th December, 2000. 5. Accordingly, following the aforesaid decision, these Appeals are dismissed with no orders as to costs. ******* hki