Source: https://advocatemmmohan.com/2017/02/22/whether-a-post-acquisition-allottee-of-land-is-necessary-or-proper-party-or-has-any-locus-to-be-heard-in-the-matter-of-determination-of-compensation-under-the-scheme-of-the-land-acquisition-act-1894/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 04:55:17+00:00

Document:
Chandigarh in R.F. A. Nos.4316 of 2010 etc. etc.
permitting additional evidence and directing remand is sustainable.
Industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC) in Gurgaon District in Haryana.
judgment were dealt with in HSIDC v. Mawasi and HSIDC v. Pran Sukh.
compensation based on judgment of this Court in Pran Sukh (supra).
increase of 12% for the time gap was erroneous in view of ONGC v.
for its impleadment or for leave to act as intervenor.
acquired may not lead proper evidence or advance effective arguments.
Court, the company in question was required to pay about Rs.900 crores.
the Collector or the Court in the process of determination of compensation.
Reference Court for fresh decision.
Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (Dead) by legal representatives and ors. v.
State of Karnataka and anr.
not be considered within the scope of Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC.
which was not earlier considered.
Ors. and; U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi (Dead) by Lrs.
picture. Once the land vests in the State, the acquisition is complete.
questions were framed for consideration.
High Court is maintainable in law?
referred to supra framed by KIADB under Section 41(2)(b) of the KIAD Act.
the respondents are distinguishable as already held by this Court.
was in the context of statutory authority for whom the land was acquired.
July, 2004 which has been relied upon in the impugned judgment in para 31.
treated as a precedent for deciding the legal issue at hand.
to be heard in the matter and is neither a necessary nor a proper party.
case. There was no ground for remand in these circumstances.
the High Court on 27th March, 2017.
 Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan v. State of Karnataka, SLP(C)No.
for the State Government. Dasti, in addition, is also permitted. Mr. V.N.
22 Feb 2017 22 Feb 2017 advocatemmmohanUncategorizedSATISH KUMAR GUPTA AND ETC. ETC. Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ETC.
Previous Post When the Court is called upon to interpret the documents and examine its effect, it involves questions of law. It is, therefore, obligatory upon the High Court to decide such questions on merits. = whether the suit property is self-acquired property of late Sk. Noor Mohammad and, if so, whether respondent No.1 was entitled to inherit the same as his legal representative in accordance with the shares defined in the Mohammedan Law and secondly, whether the suit property is self-acquired property of the appellant (defendant No.1) on the strength of documents filed by him and, if so, whether it has resulted in excluding respondent No.1 to claim any share in such property as an heir of Sk. Noor Mohammad, was required to be decided by framing substantial questions of law in the light of proved documents filed by defendant No.1 because it was his case that the suit property was his self-acquired property. The High Court unfortunately did not examine any document for deciding the ownership issue in relation to the suit property.
Next Post It is settled law that the First Information Report is not an encyclopaedia, and if the necessary details are there, on its basis detailed narration by the witnesses cannot be doubted.; the trial court committed grave error by accepting the defence case that the deceased might have died of the injuries suffered in an accident, as the possibility was not ruled out by PW-2 Dr. C. Francis. We have carefully gone through the statement of Dr. C. Francis. What he has stated in the cross-examination is “such injuries can be caused to a person if he meets accident”. There is no suggestion of the fact that at the place of incident any vehicle had passed through at the time of the indicent. The trial court appears to have taken support of conjectures and surmises. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the High Court has correctly held that the view taken by the trial court is perverse and against the evidence on record.= where two views are possible, the High Court should not interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the trial court. We agree with the principle of law that when two views are possible, the view taken by the trial court should not be disturbed, but in the present case the view taken by the trial court, as discussed above, was perverse and rightly held so by the High Court. For the reasons, as discussed above, we find no force in this appeal which is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.