Gujarat High Court High Court

Deputy vs Narsingbhai on 13 December, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Deputy vs Narsingbhai on 13 December, 2010
Author: Jayant Patel,&Nbsp;Honourable Bankim.N.Mehta,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CA/4050/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 4050 of 2010
 

In
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 1078 of 2009
 

With


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 4052 of 2010
 

In
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 1080 of 2009
 

To


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 4054 of 2010 

 

In
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 1082 of 2009
 

With


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 4056 of 2010
 

In
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 1084 of 2009
 

 
=========================================================

 

DEPUTY
COLLECTOR & 2 - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

NARSINGBHAI
BHATALABHAI ETC & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================

 

 
Appearance
: 
MR
KL PANDYA, AGP for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 3. 
RULE SERVED for
Respondent(s) : 1 -
2. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 18/08/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)

All
the applications are for condonation of delay of 581 days in
preferring First Appeals against the judgement and order passed by
the Reference Court in respective References, which are impugned in
the concerned First Appeals.

It
has been stated by the learned AGP Mr.Pandya that against the very
acquisition order passed by the Reference Court for awarding
compensation, the appeals are admitted by this Court.

Under
these circumstances, we find that there is a good case to be
considered on merits. Further, even if the lenient view is taken on
the aspects of condonation of delay, we would have considered the
matter for imposition of cost, but it appears that in spite of the
notice of Rule served upon the concerned claimants, nobody has
appeared.

Hence,
the aforesaid being the peculiar facts and circumstances in the
present case, we find that the delay deserves to be condoned and,
therefore, condoned.

The
applications are disposed of accordingly. Rule made absolute.

	 



 

						
(Jayant  Patel, J.)
 


 


 


18.8.2010				(Bankim
N. Mehta, J.)
 


 vinod

    

 
	   
      
      
	    
		      
	   
      
	  	    
		   Top