Gujarat High Court
SCA/1369/1989 of GANDUBHAI DAMABHAI Vs STATE OF GUJARAT on 12 December 1996
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 1369 of 1989 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE S.M.SONI and MR.JUSTICE S.D.PANDIT ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements? No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 1369 of 1989
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE S.M.SONI and
MR.JUSTICE S.D.PANDIT
============================================================
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements? No.
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement? No.
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? No.
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?
No
-------------------------------------------------------------- GANDUBHAI DAMABHAI
Versus STATE OF GUJARAT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:
MR BJ JADEJA for Petitioner
SERVED for Respondent No. 1, 2
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE S.M.SONI and MR.JUSTICE S.D.PANDIT
Date of decision: 12/12/96
ORAL JUDGEMENT(Per:Pandit.J)
Though the matter is called out repeatedly nobody has remained present. We have perused the record and therefore, we proceed to dispose of the same on merits.
2. This petition is filed against the order of the Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Jamnagar passed on 18.3.87 by which the petitioner's application has been rejected.
3. The order of the Land Acquisition Officer shows that he has rejected the said application as the same was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed for filing an application under section 18. The award in the L.A. case No 13/82 was declared on 30.3.83; whereas the application for making the reference u/s 18 was filed on 13.3.86. Therefore, it is obvious that said application was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act.
4. It is one of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this petition that by taking the aid of section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963, the delay caused in filing the petition may be condoned but similar contention was taken before the Land Acquisition Officer and he has negatived the same. Said decision could not be said to be illegal improper. In the recent case of Officer on Special Duty vs. Shah Manilal Chandulal 1996(2) JT 278 the Apex Court has held that provisons of section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 are not applicable to proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. Thus it is obvious that there is no merit in this petition. The petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed. We accordingly dismiss the same witn no order as to costs. Rule discharged.
(S.M.Soni.J)
(S.D.Pandit.J)