← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaIOIN/3684/2017allowed

Ram Singh & ORS v. Land Acquisition Collector & Anothers

2017-09-20Mr Justice Jaswant Singh7 pages

210 IOIN-CM-3684-CI-2017 IOIN-CM-3685-CI-2017 IOIN-CM-3686-CI-2017 IOIN-CM-3687-CI-2017 IOIN-CM-3688-CI-2017 IN RFA-3934-1992 Ram Singh (deceased) and others v. Land Acquisition Collector, Pathankot and others

Present:

Mr. Jasjeet Singh, Advocate, for Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate, for the appellants.

Ms. Rukhsaar Sandhu, AAG, Punjab.

The appeal as also all the miscellaneous applications therein, were disposed of by this Court vide order and judgment, dated 05.04.2017. But the matter has again been placed before this Court by the office, for, three miscellaneous applications, i.e. CM-3486-CI-2017, CM-3487-CI-2017 and CM-3488-CI-2017, were wrongly numbered as such by the branch, whereas the numbers assigned to these applications were CM-3686-CI-2017, CM-3687-CI-2017 and CM-3688-CI-2017. Even the number of CM-3685CI-2017 is depicted in the accompanying affidavit as CM-3485-CI-2017. It is pleaded that the mistake has occurred purely out of inadvertence and owing to rush of work.

As the error that has crept in appears to be accidental in nature, the same is ordered to be rectified. Accordingly, the office is permitted to carry out necessary corrections in the number of miscellaneous applications as also in the order and judgment dated 05.04.2017, as indicated above. (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE September 20, 2017 Pkapoor

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH 104-2 CM Nos.3684-88-CI of 2017 in/and Date of Decision:05.04.2017 Ram Singh (deceased) and others ....appellants

Versus

Land Acquisition Collector, Pathankot and others .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARUN PALLI

Present:

Mr.R.S.Manhas, Advocate for the appellants *** ARUN PALLI, J. (ORAL):

CM No.3684-CI of 2017 Application is allowed as prayed for.

CM No.3685-CI of 2017 This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 1454 days in moving the application for restoration of the appeal, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 21.02.2013.

Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants submits that even the other connected appeals, arising out of the same acquisition were also dismissed in default, vide order of an even date, but were subsequently restored. Further, vide order and judgement dated 27.05.2015, rendered by this Court in RFA No.3483 of 1992-Union of India and others vs. Raghbir Singh and others, this Court dismissed the appeals preferred by the Union of India, whereas, in the claimants' appeals, the compensation was enhanced

-2to ` 1,000/- per marla.

Notice in the application.

Ms.Seema, Advocate, present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of the non-applicants/respondents.

The factual position as set out above, is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondents.

For the reasons set out in the application, that is duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. Consequently, delay of 1454 days in filing the application for restoration of the appeal, is condoned. CM No.3488-CI of 2017 For the reasons set out in the application, that is duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. Consequently, the order dated 21.02.2013 is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number. CM No.3486-CI of 2017 For the reasons set out in the application, that is duly supported legal representatives of deceased Ram Singh-appellant No.1, who is stated to have died on 23.07.1995, as depicted in para No.2 of the application, are CM No.3487-CI of 2017 For the reasons set out in the application, that is duly supported

-3legal representatives of deceased Munshi-appellant No.2, who is stated to have died on 17.05.2008, as depicted in para No.2 of the application, are RFA No.3934 of 1992 For, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the matter in issue is squarely covered by the judgement rendered by this Court in Raghbir Singh's case(supra), the present appeal too is disposed of, in terms thereof.

April 05, 2017 (ARUN PALLI) neenu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No.

Whether reportableYes/No NOTE:

THIS ORDER HAS BEEN CORRECTED, VIDE ORDER DATED 20.09.2017.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH 104-2 CM Nos.3684-88-CI of 2017 in/and Date of Decision: 05.04.2017 Ram Singh (deceased) and others ....appellants

Versus

Land Acquisition Collector, Pathankot and others .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARUN PALLI

Present:

Mr.R.S.Manhas, Advocate for the appellants *** ARUN PALLI, J. (ORAL):

CM No. 3684-CI of 2017 Application is allowed as prayed for.

CM No. 3685-CI of 2017 This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 1454 days in moving the application for restoration of the appeal, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 21.02.2013.

Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants submits that even the other connected appeals, arising out of the same acquisition were also dismissed in default, vide order of an even date, but were subsequently restored. Further, vide order and judgement dated 27.05.2015, rendered by this Court in RFA No.3483 of 1992-Union of India and others vs. Raghbir Singh and others, this Court dismissed the appeals preferred by the Union of India, whereas, in the claimants' appeals, the compensation was enhanced

-2to ` 1,000/- per marla.

Notice in the application.

Ms.Seema, Advocate, present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of the non-applicants/respondents.

The factual position as set out above, is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondents.

For the reasons set out in the application, that is duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. Consequently, delay of 1454 days in filing the application for restoration of the appeal, is condoned. CM No. 3688-CI of 2017 For the reasons set out in the application, that is duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. Consequently, the order dated 21.02.2013 is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number. CM No. 3686-CI of 2017 For the reasons set out in the application, that is duly supported legal representatives of deceased Ram Singh-appellant No.1, who is stated to have died on 23.07.1995, as depicted in para No.2 of the application, are CM No. 3687-CI of 2017 For the reasons set out in the application, that is duly supported

-3legal representatives of deceased Munshi-appellant No.2, who is stated to have died on 17.05.2008, as depicted in para No.2 of the application, are RFA No.3934 of 1992 For, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the matter in issue is squarely covered by the judgement rendered by this Court in Raghbir Singh's case(supra), the present appeal too is disposed of, in terms thereof.

April 05, 2017 (ARUN PALLI) neenu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No.

Whether reportableYes/No NOTE:

CORRECTED ORDER PURSUANT TO THE ORDER DATED 20.09.2017.