Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.98 seconds)
Murlidhar S/O Bhimraoji Sable vs State Of Maharashtra on 12 August, 2008 cites

Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh vs The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer And ... on 30 March, 1961

11/- In short, the submission of the learned AGP for Respondent No. 1 is that the knowledge of the award as ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:41:07 ::: 24 required in Raja Harish Chandra's case, referred to above, can be attributed to the appellant after receipt of the notice under section 12(2) of the L.A. Act, because in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Mahadeo's case, referred to above, even telegram regarding making of award can be considered as adequate notice for starting of the period of limitation under section 18(2) of the L.A.Act, wherein; when such reference was not made within the period of six weeks was held to be barred by limitation. Further according to him, the period spent for obtaining certified copy can not be excluded from computation of period of limitation u/s 18(2) of the L.A. Act and therefore, the reference application filed by the appellant would be barred by limitation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 617 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Mahadeo Bajirao Patil vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 6 September, 2005

19/- On perusal of the relevant notice, which is at Exh. 74, it would be seen that the appellants were intimated about the date when the S.L.A.O. for Collector had declared the award. It is necessary to bear in mind that when this notice was received by the appellants on 19.1.1996, the appellants were in the knowledge of the material facts of the award. As such, the appellants were in the knowledge of the award & material aspects of the award. Therefore, the period of limitation as provided under Section 18(2) of six weeks of the Act would start from that date at the latest though not from the date of declaration of the award by S.L.A.O. or the Collector. One can not lost sight of the law laid down by the Apex Court in 2007 (7) SCC 440; Mahadeo Bajirao Patil vs. State of Maharashtra and ors., wherein it has been observed by the Apex Court that, it is not necessary that the notice should contain all the details of the award including the consideration by the Land Acquisition Officer and its manner of determination of the compensation, no particular form is prescribed by the Act or the Rules and even the telegram of intimation that the award ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:41:07 ::: 30 has been passed was held to be sufficient notice under Section 12(2) of the L.A. Act for starting the period of limitation under Section 18(2) of the said Act. In my opinion, this decision of the Apex Court, clearly enjoins this Court in the facts of this case to come to the conclusion that the period of limitation would start from & only from 19.1.1996. Admittedly, the reference is filed on 26.4.1996 i.e. much after the period of six weeks from 19.1.1996. I have already pointed out that the period for obtaining certified copy cannot be excluded while computing the period of limitation under Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for the authorities referred above. The authorities referred by the learned counsel for appellants can not help them in view of the above. As such, when such period is not excluded (i.e. for obtaining C.C.), for calculating the period of limitation, as required under Section 18(2) of the L.A. Act, this reference would clearly be barred by limitation. The learned trial Judge has taken the right view on this aspect of the matter and therefore, the conclusion reached by the learned trial Judge in this regard cannot be legally assailed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 68 - B P Singh - Full Document
1   2 Next