FIRST APPEAL NOS.2210 v. DAHYABHAI KARSHANBHAI GUARDIANOF MINOR KITRIKUMAR D PATEL
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE Y.B.BHATT Date of decision: 28/09/2000 COMMON ORAL JUDGEMENT
1.(cid:9)These are appeals under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act read with section 96 of CPC at the instance of the State of Gujarat, challenging the judgement and award of the Reference Court passed under section 18 of the said Act. The acquisition pertained to the Guhai Irrigation Project under section 4 Notification dated 3rd September 1987. The Reference Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, determined the market value of the irrigated lands at Rs.925/- per Are. It is this judgement and award which is challenged by the State of Gujarat in the present appeals.
2.(cid:9)It has been the consistent practice of this High Court not to enter into the merits of those appeals wherein the claim in appeal is a petty claim, and claims upto Rs.25,000/- have been quantified by this Court as petty claims.
3.(cid:9)No question of law or principle is urged.
3.1(cid:9)Even if contentions on merits could have been urged, they could only be those urged in FA No.2209/2000 (forming part of this group), which has been decided on merits, and dismissed today. A copy of the judgement in FA No.2209/2000 shall be kept with this judgement.
4.(cid:9)These appeals are, therefore, summarily dismissed on the ground that they represent petty claims, without entering into the merits of the matter.
5.(cid:9)It is expected that the appellant will deposit the amount of compensation as per the Award in the Reference Court within three months from today. ****** *ar*
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India; Land Acquisition Act — s. 54; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 96.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gujarat High Court, on 28 Sep 2000. The bench was Y B BHATT.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.