Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
MCA/1167/2010 2/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 1167 of 2010
In
FIRST APPEAL No. 1322 of
1999
To
MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 1177 of 2010
In
FIRST
APPEAL No. 1332 of 1999
=========================================================
EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER - Applicant(s)
Versus
KANTILAL
PRAHLADBHAI & 10 - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
AD OZA
for
Applicant
None for Opponent(s) : 1 10
MR PRANAV TRIVEDI AGP for Opponent
No.1
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER 14th May 2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per :
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT)
These Applications for modification of the judgment and order dated
17th November 1999 passed by this Court [Coram
: Rajesh Balia, J. as he then was & Ms.
R.M Doshit, J.] are made by the Executive Engineer, Narmada
Yojana-appellant No. 2 in the Appeals.
Learned
advocate Mr. Oza has appeared for the applicant. He has submitted
that in the land reference cases, the Reference Court has awarded
interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of compensation from the
date Notification under Section 4 was issued. He has submitted that
interest @ 9% per annum under Section 34 of the Land
Acquisition Act is payable from the date of taking over of possession
of the land. He has submitted that in the present case, Notification
under Section 4 of the Act was issued in the year 1985; possession
of the land was taken over in the year 1998. The difference of amount
of interest payable under the Act and payable under the award of `the
Reference Court is substantial. The First Appeal preferred by the
State Government ought to have been allowed to that extent.
Therefore, these Applications for modification.
We
are afraid, we are unable to accept these Applications. It may be
true that the Reference Court had erred in issuing direction to pay
interest @ 9% per annum from the date of Notification issued
under Section 4 of the Act but it may be noted that this issue was
not raised in the First Appeals nor was argued. We have perused the
memo of the Appeal too. The issue has not been raised at all. In
absence of any dispute raised before the High Court, the modification
sought cannot be granted.
Applications
are rejected.
Registry
will maintain copy of this Order in each Application.
{Ms.
R.M Doshit, J.}
{K.M
Thaker, J.}
Prakash*
Top