Munna Lal Verma And Others v. The Land Aquisition Officer And Another

^.1»"~ o^ l^'

W THE fflGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR FIRSTAPPEALNO.

/2004 1.

MUNNALAL VERMA SON OF / LATE ANGADRAM, AGED 42 l"KS't:

'ii ',-J U »^-d t^ gju YEARS.

2.

DULARI WIFE OF DAUWA-ftARAM, AGED YEARS.

3.

KAMALNARAYAN, SON OF / LATE ANGADRAM, AGED 38 <!.i:\'- YEARS.

4.

PADMA WIFE OF MALIKRAM, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.

5.

KRISHNA KUMAR, SON OF LATE ANGADRAM, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.

4^ ACM.^5y ,-'\^ ^•sc"

^%^'

6.

RAMSNEHI, SON OF LATE ''

ANGADRAM, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.

7.

RAJENDRA SON OF LATE ^ ANGADRAM,AGED ABOUT 30 < ^?

•^^.

^^:^ ^ye^"

'i t •'"•"t.

YEARS.

<'

.^•"

^ 8.

RAMESH KUMAR, SON OF ( LATE ANGADRAM, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.

9.

RAMESHWARI, WIFE OF f BHARAT TIKRIHA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.

10.RAJKUMAR, SON OF LATE ANGADRAM, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS.

^^RAMNARESH, SON OF LATE "^O^ ANGADRAM, AGED ABOUT 22 ^ ^'aiiasPUYEARS.

<••

12. SANTOSH, SON OF LATE ANGADRAM, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS.

''^ll^R/6-yiu^Ge ^ s^Tft^ APPELLANTS vs 1, THE /"'

LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, THROUGH THE COLLECTOR, RAIPUR.

2.

CHHATTISGHAR JILA UDYOG ^ KENDRA, RAIPUR.

RESPONDENTS Appeal valued at as per amount of compensation claimed is more than Rs.lLac and a fixed court fee Rs.20/- APPEAL UNDER SECTION 54 OFLAND AGOUISITION ACT, 1894 t'r:'.

<!i li^

:A /°^ws^.

iiSs'i£S"'». 9 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR First Appeal No. 38 of 2004 Appellants :

Munnalal Verma and others

VERSUS

Respondents The Land Acquisition Officer and another Application unclerSection28 ofthe Hindu Marriage Act

Present:

Nbne;foritheparties.

SB:

Hon'ble Mr. Inder Singh Uboweja, J.

ORDER

(12thFebruary,2015) When the matter is called out forhearing today second time, no one (1) appears on behalf ofthe appellants.

(2) Being aggrieved by the award dated 17.09.2002 passed in Land Acquisition Case No.262 of 2001 by the 6th Additional District Judge, Raipur, the appellants prefer this appeal.

(3) In absence of any representation on behalf of the appellants, this Court has left with no option except to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

(4) Consequently, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- Inder Singh Uboweja Judge chandra