Nashik Panchavati Panjrapol v. Trust, Nashik
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. There is no dispute that a copy of each of the above mentioned documents has been received by the learned counsel for the applicant and they are all registered sale deeds. Just because these documents were not submitted or were not sought to be…
Judgment
Mr. Anil J. Ahuja, Advocate for applicant. Mr. C.M. Lokesh, Advocate i/by Mr. G.S. Hegde, Advocate for respondents. Coram : B.H. Marlapalle & U.D. Salvi, JJ. Date : 16th November, 2010 P.C.
1. Heard Mr. Ahuja, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. By this application, the applicant prays for recall of the order passed by us on 15th September 2010 in Civil Application No.2725 of 2007. By the said order, while allowing the Civil Application, leave to bring on record the following additional documents was granted.
Sale deed of survey no.266/4 2. Sale deed of survey no. 266/4 3. Sale deed of survey no.189/4 4. Sale deed of survey no.193A/4, Hissa no.24 and 5. Sale deed of survey no.196/2 Plot no.9.
The learned counsel for the applicant contends that Civil Application 2 CAF 4131/2010 No.2725 of 2007 was allowed and the documents which were within the knowledge of the applicant-Corporation, which was party before the reference court as well, are allowed to be produced in the appeal, the interest of the applicant would be seriously prejudiced. He has relied upon the decision in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer and another vs. Mariano Caetano Clarimundo, 2005 (3) Mh.L.J. 249.
There is no dispute that a copy of each of the above mentioned documents has been received by the learned counsel for the applicant and they are all registered sale deeds. Just because these documents were not submitted or were not sought to be submitted before the reference court, leave to submit the same before the appellate court cannot be refused. Section 51-A of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 states that in any proceeding under the said Act, a certified copy of a document registered under the Registration Act, 1908, including a copy given under Section 57 of the said Act may be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document. Undoubtedly the appeal pending before this Court is the appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act and it cannot be said that the appellant or any of the parties to the appeal has no 3 CAF 4131/2010 right to bring on record the copies of additional documents so long as they are registered. Hence, the application is rejected. (U.D. Salvi, J) (B.H. Marlapalle, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Registration Act, 1908; Land Acquisition Act — s. 54.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 16 Nov 2010. The bench was U D SALVI, B H MARLAPALLE.
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.