Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.27 seconds)Section 19 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 34 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Article 120 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 11 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
D.K. Khanna vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 3 October, 1972
In H. K. Khanna v. The Union of India, 1971(1) Serv LR 618(Punj), it was held that the Departmental proceedings against a Government servant under the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, whether original or appellate, are quasi-judicial in nature. Not only that the principles of natural justice have to be followed but the final order has to contain the reasons which have to be communicated to the delinquent officer in order to enable him to effectively challenge those reasons in appeal or in other statutory proceedings available to him. The order passed in Departmental proceedings is a quasi-judicial order.
State Of Madras vs A.R. Srinivasan on 2 March, 1966
To the same effect was the law laid down in State of Madras v. A. R. Srinivasan, AIR 1966 SC 1827 and in Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shyam Sunder Jhunjhunwala, AIR 1961 SC 1669.
M/S. Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd vs Shyam Sundar Jhunjhunwala And Others on 25 April, 1961
18. According to Sections 9 and 10 of the Patiala Act No. III of 1995 Bk., the Collector is required to give public notice to the parties claiming compensation for the acquired land and he is required to hold enquiry about the amount of compensation payable to them. Section 14 of the Act gives powers to the Collector to summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses and production of documents during that enquiry. In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for the land acquired under the Act, the Collector is to take into consideration the matters referred to in Section 15 of the Act. Thereafter he is to make an award fixing the compensation payable for the acquired land and to partition the said compensation among all the persons interested in the land. An appeal at the instance of any "person interested" against the award is provided to the authority appointed by the Patiala State under Section 19(1) of the Act and a revision lay to the Revenue Minister from the decision of the authority. It is thus clear that the Collector while holding the enquiry to determine the market value of land and Revenue Commissioner while hearing appeal against the award of the Collector under the Patiala Act had legal authority to determine the questions affecting the rights of the parties and they were to act judicially and were required to give reasons in support of their orders. Therefore, in view of the law laid down in the above-mentioned rulings the impugned order is a quasi-judicial order and consequently this suit is governed by Article 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908. The plaintiffs had one year's period of limitation to file the suit from the date of this order which is July 25, 1944. The suit was filed on October 23, 1950, and was clearly barred by limitation. We, therefore, hold that the suit was barred by limitation and it is liable to be dismissed on that ground. The decision of the District Judge on Issue No. 2 is affirmed but for different reasons.