Bagendra Nath Tiwari v. Shamdeo Singh
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ss. 96, 110
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 s. 54
Judgment
Bagendra Nath Tiwari 2. Vijay Kumar Tiwari 3. Sujit Kumar Tiwari 4. Most. Draupadi Kuer 5. Karuneshwar Nath Tripathi 6. Aruneshwar Nath Tripathi 7. Ramesh Chander Tiwari 8. Ritesh Chandra Tripathi 9. Rinku Tripathi 10. Baby Devi 11. Guriya Kumari 12. Smt. Asha Devi 13. Smt. Pushpa Devi 14. Upendra Nath Tripathy 15. Kalinda Tripathy 16. Dilip Tripathy 17. Omkar Tripathy 18. Raj Kamal Tripathy 19. Most. Shushila Kuer 20. Nil Kamal Tripathy 21. Hridai Tripathy 22. Kamal Kant Tripathy 23. Most. Mamta Kuer 24. Ritu Kumari 25. Sunita Devi 26. Sangita Devi 27. Saraswati Devi 28. Ajay Tiwari 29. Ashis Tiwari 30. Nagwant Tripathi 31. Most. Indu Kuer 32. Arvind Tripathy 33. Asbind Tripathy 34. Smt. Suryamani Devi 35. Smt. Chandrawati Devi Versus
1. Shamdeo Singh 2. Prahlad Singh 3. Bhotan Singh 4. Sambhu Nath Singh 5. Sarveshwar Singh 6. Brij Ban Singh 7. Udit Narain Singh 8. Krishna Murari Singh 9. Belwanti Devi ….. Petitioners ….. Opposite Parties ----- CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- 2 For the Petitioners: For the O.Ps: Mr. Arbind Kr. Sinha ----- 07/26.08.2022 The present civil revision has been preferred against the judgment dated
23.03.2013 passed by the Principal District Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Title Appeal No. 13/2005 whereby the Court below has declined to hear the appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC. I.A. No. 2119/2020 has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for condonation of delay of 2435 days in filing the present civil revision. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that some of the petitioners had earlier filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3379/2013 before this Court challenging the impugned judgment dated 23.03.2013. The said writ petition, however, remained pending for considerable period and finally vide order dated
31.01.2020, the same was dismissed as withdrawn by a Bench of this Court with liberty to the petitioners to approach appropriate forum. Under the said circumstance, the delay of 2435 days in filing the present civil revision may be condoned. In course of consideration of I.A. No. 2119/2020 filed for condonation of delay committed in filing the present civil revision, this Court also intends to go through the impugned judgement dated 23.03.2013 passed by the Principal District Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Title Appeal No. 13/2005. On perusal of the said judgment, it appears that the Appellate Court declined to entertain the appeal on merit on the ground that the same was not maintainable in view of Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1894’]. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the present interlocutory application as well as the contents of the present writ petition, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay of 2435 days in filing the present civil revision. Otherwise also, the petitioners have failed to make out any case on merit so as to interfere with the impugned judgment dated 3
23.03.2013 passed by the Principal District Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Title Appeal No. 13/2005. Section 54 of the Act, 1894 clearly stipulates that an appeal against the award or any part of the award of the Reference Court shall only lie to the High Court and from any decree of the High Court, further appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court, subject to the provisions contained in Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and in Order XLV thereof. I.A. No. 2119/2020 is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the present civil revision is also dismissed. Satish/-
(RAJESH SHANKAR, J)
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.