evolawyer/inlegalbert-sc-ner-silver huggingface dataset:
SATE OF HARYANA A v.

TRILOK CHAND AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

DECEMBER 8, 1995

(K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] B

Practice and procedure :

Appeahubstitutiott-Failure to take steps for-Effect of

Dismissing the appeals filed by the State Government, this Court c

HELD : Appeals stand dismissed as against respondent No. 2 as no steps have been taken to bring his legal representative on record. The award being common and indivisible, appeals stand abated as against all.

[359-GJ D

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 11843-49 of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 4.2.85 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in R.F.A. Nos. 3-07, 333, 506-07 and 085 of 1984.

Ms. Indu Malhotra for the Appellant.

G .K. Bansal for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered : F

Leave granted.

In view of the order passed by this Court giving peremptory time to bring the Legal Representatives on record within six weeks from July 28, 1995, no steps have been taken. As a result, the appeals as against respon- G dent No. 2 stand dismissed without any further reference to the Court.

Since the appeals have been dismissed against one of them and the award being common and indivisible, the appeals stand abated as against all. The appeals are dismissed. No costs.

R.P.

Appeals dismissed. H 359
KALYAN A v.

GORAKH

DECEMBER 13, 1995

[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] B

Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950 :

Ss.2(c), 2(r) & 34-Agricultural land-f'urcliased from erstwhile landlord-Protected tenant-Claim over land sold by landlord-Purchaser in possession-Held, purchaser to deposit Rs. 10,000-Every year till disposal of C suit-ln the event of tenant succeeding, he would be emitted to wiOidraw the

an1ount.

In a revision petition arising out of a suit between the appellant, the purchaser of the land in dispute from the erstwhile landlord, and the D respondent, a protected tenant under the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950, the High Court directed appointment of a receiver in respect of the suit land. Aggrieved, the purchaser filed the appeal.

Disposing of the appeal, this Court

HELD : In view of the finding of the High Court that the appellant is in possession of the land, it would be in the interest of justice that appellant continues in possession but deposits a sum of Rs. 10,000 every year from 1991 onwards till the disposal of the suit. In the event of the respondent succeeding in the suit, he would be entitled to withdraw the

amount with interest accrued thereon. [660-C-D] F

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 12055 of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 11.3.93 of the Bombay High Court in C.R.P. No. 'lJ',7 of 1993.

Subrat Birla and S.C. Birla for the Appellants.

B.Y. Kulkarni for the Respondent.

The following Order of the Court was delivered : 659 H

. 660

SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A Leave granted.

Having heard the counsel on both sides, we are satisfied that there is no need to disturb the findings recorded by the High Court. However, the High Court having found the appellant in possession of the land after he had purchased the property from the erstwhile landlord of the respon- B dent, a protected tenant under the provisions of the Hyderabad Tenancy And Agricultural Land Act, 1950; and so, needed some protection, it directed appointment of receiver. In view of the finding that the appellant is in possession, we feel that in the interest of justice, the appellant would continue in possession but should deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000 every year C from the year 1991 onwards to the credit of the suit and keep depositing the same till the disposal of the suit etc. In the event of the respondent succeeding in the suit, he is entitled to withdraw the same. As soon as the appellant shall deposit the arrears as on date within a period of three months from today and before 31st January of each year, the trial court is directed to keep that amount in interest yielding deposit securities in a D nationalised Bank. In the event of the respondent's succeeding, he would be entitled to withdraw the amount with interest accrued thereon. The trial court is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of this order.

E The appeal is accordingly disposed of in terms of the above order.

No costs.

R.P.

Appeal disposed of.
STATE OF KERALA

M.M. ABDUL KHADER

DECEMBER 15, 1995

[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

S. 23(1-Aj-Award of Collector being dated 21.4.1980-Claimants nor C entitled ro benefits under the section.

The State Government filed appeal against the jndgment of the High Court allowing the claimants, the benefits of s. 23(1-A) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

D Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD : Since the award of the Collector is of April, 21, 1980, the claimants are not entitled to the additional amount under s. 23 (lA) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. [785-C]

E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 12120 of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 28.1.93 of the Kerala High Court in L.A.A. No. 244 of 1988.

F M.T. George for the Appellants.

N. Sudahakaran for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

G Leave granted.

The only controversy is as regards the entitlement of the respondents to the additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Since the award of the Collector is of June 4, 1979, the claimants are not entitled to the additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the said H Act. 784

STATEv. M.M.ABDULKHADER 785

The appeal is accordingly allowed to the above extent. The Order of A the High Court is set aside. No costs.

CA. No. 12121 of 1995

Leave granted.

The only controversy with which we are concerned in this appeal is as regards the entitlement of the respondents to the additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Ac~ 1894. Since the award of the Collector is of April 21, 1980, the claimants are not entitled to the additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the said Act.

The appeal is accordingly allowed to the above extent. The order of the High Court is set aside. No costs.

R.P.

Appeals allowed.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v.

B.N. SINGH AND ORS.

DECEMBER 15, 1995

[K. RAM~SWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.)

Constitution of India.

Article 136-0rder of Central Administrative Tribunal-Based on ser- C vice record of employee-Held, not a case waTTanting inteiference.

The Union of India tiled the present appeal against the order of the Tribunal giving the appellant certain directions.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court

HELD : On perusal of the record, it is seen that except during the relevant period, either previous or subsequent to the period, the first respondent was outstanding career and the records are very good. The integrity of the officer has nt been doubted. Under these circumstances, it is not a case warranting interference under Article 136 of the Constitu- E lion. [790-H, 791-A]

CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 12075 of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 12.7.95 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi in O.A. No. 1506 of 1989.

N.N. Goswami, Heman! Sharma and S.N. Terdol for the Appellants.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.

We have called for the record to satisfy ourselves whether the Tribunal was justified in giving the direction in the impugned order. On perusal of the record, it is seen that except during the relevant period, H either previous or subsequent to the period, the first respondent has

U.0.l. v. B.N. SINGH 791

outstanding career and the records are very good. The integrity of the A officer has not been doubted. Under these circumstances, we think that it is not a case warranting our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

R.P .

Appeal dismissed.
MAHESH KUMAR AGAL A v.

DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND ANR.

DECEMBER 15, 1995

[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] B

Service Law :

Seniority-Held, where condition for promotion is passing the Hindi test, promotion and seniority to be given effect from the date of passing the C said test.

The appellant filed the appeal against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal rejecting his claim of seniority.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court

HELD : Passing the Hindi test being a condition for promotion, the appellant was rightly given promotion and his seniority was rightly fixed with effect from the date he passed the test. (795-G]

CNIL APPELIA TE JURISDICTION : Ciw Appeal No. 12094 of 1995. . E

From the Judgment and Order dated 24.3.92 of the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in Bhopal in 0.A. Nos. 196 of 1990.

C.L. Sahu for the Appellant.

Amitabh Verma aod S.K. Agnihotri for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.

Passing the Hindi test is a condition for promotion and since the appellant had passed the lest on September 20, 1981, he was given promo- G tion and seniority was fixed with effect from the passing of the said test.

Under thesecircumstances, we do not find aoy illegality in the order passed hy the Tribunal warranting interference.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

R.P.

Appeal dismissed. H 795