However, on perusal of said para I found that due to
typological error date of notification u/s 4 been taken
as 11.09.2000 instead ... view that petitioner cannot be given advantage of the
human error and cannot be given market value @
Rs.14,83,500/ per acre for category
However, on perusal of said para I found that due to
typological error date of notification u/s 4 been taken as
11.09.2000 instead ... view that petitioner cannot be given
advantage of the human error and cannot be given market
value @ Rs.14,83,500 which is determine
dated 06.07.2010
prima facie reflect application of mind and there was human
error or mistake in not indicating/incorporating the relevant
provisions of the Prevention
However, on perusal of said para I found that due to
typological error date of notification u/s 4 been taken
as 11.09.2000 instead ... view that petitioner cannot be given advantage of the
human error and cannot be given market value @
Rs.14,83,500/ per acre for category
However, on perusal of said para I found that due to
typological error date of notification u/s 4 been taken
as 11.09.2000 instead ... advantage of the
LAC No. 430A/08 Page 9 of 11
human error and cannot be given market value @
Rs.14,83,500/ per acre
However, on perusal of said para I found that due to
typological error date of notification u/s 4 been taken
as 11.09.2000 instead ... view that petitioner cannot be
given advantage of the human error and cannot be given
market value @ Rs.14,83,500 which is determine
However, on perusal of said para I found that due to
typological error date of notification u/s 4 been taken
as 11.09.2000 instead ... view that petitioner cannot be
given advantage of the human error and cannot be given
market value @ Rs.14,83,500 which is determine
However, on perusal of said para I found that due to
typological error date of notification u/s 4 been taken
as 11.09.2000 instead ... view that petitioner cannot be given advantage of the
human error and cannot be given market value @
Rs.14,83,500/ per acre for category
again stated that there is an alteration and this is a human
error. However, this explanation is not sufficient to remove the doubt which
opinion this is
a minor human error which can easily be brushed aside considering
the entirety of the testimony of PW6. Further more
