V Anjaneya Reddy vs The Additional Land Acquisition … on 28 January, 2009

ORIJEQ

The petitioner] land laser is befere this Conn: 
the ardcr passed in E3x.P. No.131,fi2OG'.2.    L"  
w...»
9 Heard Sri P, KfishBapi3_§§;__

petitioner aad Sri K,K1fi_$hna, _   the

refifiondent and pfimsed   _
3; The pefigaéqfger  Cioult

seeldng fer    and addiukmal

compensafiéfi   'léiiti 'Lima in SUNDER vs,

UNION   3692]. The respondents
herein had «;;bjéct43d_ jI:0 ~f_1u1é3~.-- by contendirxg that the
*  ._:hada§t:€11...paid and also the petitioner is not
.V<:s--«3:t'ti?I;'§.«<2¥z,1.§<3v.,(j1.a§:33; fa3r interest in the manner in which it has
   besiiclijaile.  Vfiréecuting Court While closing the axecution
 ' pctitiozlx 11$-:l:S... txéithaut datail reasons t9 the claim made has
  "gm Vfixecufion pefitien by flfifi impugned order which
 =¥1a$ E§éién called £11 qusstion in this petiticzn' Thaugh a
1;
mfercnce has been made by the Exscufifig Court V!V..:o;i'.._"£E3gjf.s
dccisien of the H<:m'bI,e Suprerae Conn: in  A' 
GURUPREETH SINGH vs UNION 01: mum (2fiQ§-"w;4§I§.::SCW  
5813), the applicability of the  'by
Hoxrfble Supreme Court to th<:.T'i::;sta11{._g's;se   
considered by the Executing  fa  it is

noticsd that even as   t11€VV..AIi:.%vCC11fiflg

Court, the claimant has   regard to

the claim made. ;"'Né'A;.<:i:3ub;f., it   pefitioner was

before the   instances and the

pefifions:v'"'£x%ére .:  said position, the

§:"f«xecuti13é".C4%.a:'1ri   Elhpplyr its mind to the fact
relating _to fl3.é"'z1at1'm¢'V-.oAf§udg1nent and awani passed in
 'the  case  to Whether the earlier execution
 'pé1;itViaté:  .
proceedings.   é
Share this:

				
				Facebook
			

				
				X
			
Like this:
Like Loading...


	
Related