State Of Haryana Through Collector, Mohindergarh & ORS v. Ramotar S/O Sh. Parsada

 








 
       











2  3/3


%'4 '#


1



















 !"

#"$%&%'(

 

 

        

  ! %  9        

    
(
 )*


 +
*
,+

*

  

 

! "#" 

 

  

 "# 

  

 $  "  %!  

   

   " %  

& " %    

  " %  

   " %     " %  

'$  " %"  

($  " %  

)& " %  

*+

 " %    

!

       ,,,,, *
,+

*-
     3.0/33
%'
2  3/3

 The prayer in this application is to condone the delay of 433 days in filing the cross-objections.

 Admittedly, the connected appeal(s) arising from the same notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, are pending. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Imrat Lal and others vs. Land Acquisition Collector and others (SC) 2015(2) RCR (Civil) 437, Dhiraj Singh (deceased) thr. LRs vs. Haryana State and others, 2015(2) RCR (Civil) 507 and Jethu Ram (deceased) thr. LRs vs. Union of India and others, 2016(4) Law Herald 3166, has held that in such cases the delay be condoned subject to the denial of interest to the appellants for the period of delay. 6: 

2  3/3


%'4 '#






33


1



Hence, the application is allowed and delay of 433 days in filing the cross-objections is condoned, subject to the condition that the crossobjector(s) shall not be entitled to interest for the period of delay. CM-3166-CI-2021 in XOBJR-25-2021 For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the application for bringing on record the legal representative of Ramotar (respondent/cross-objector) is allowed, subject to all the just exceptions. Main Case:


- 

 "

      
 

  "    

    !"

     

  %  % "  

"   

  


















*
,+

*














 
   .    /' 0  $  .   *0   &   6;