R.S.E.B., Jaipur v. Ghanshyam) Date of Order & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
appeal is dismissed
Provisions considered
Judgment
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr.Ravi Bhansali, for the appellant. Mr.Sanjeev Johari, for the respondent/s. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This misc. appeal has been filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (W) CPC against the order dated 23.11.1998 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhilwara in Civil Misc. Case No.(38) 20/86, whereby, the order dated
02.06.1998 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhilwara in Civil Misc. Case No.20/86 was reviewed and an order was passed for interest @ 12% from the date of issuance of notification dated 26.05.1978 to the date of award dated 05.05.1980 in view of Section 23(1)A of the Land Acquisition Act. I have perused the impugned order dated
23.11.1998, so also, Section 23 (1) A of the Land Acquisition Act. upon perusal of the order dated 02.06.1998, it is revealed that at the time of passing award, the mandatory provision for granting interest was to be taken into account, but no order was passed with regard to interest as per mandatory provision of Section 23(1)A of the Land Acquisition Act, therefore, upon review application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, the order dated 2.6.98 was reviewed and order impugned in this appeal was passed on 23.11.98. In my opinion, the learned trial court has not committed any error while passing an order upon review !! 2 !! application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, because admittedly no interest was awarded at the time of passing award, but latter on, when it was pointed out in the review application that as per Section 23(1)A of the Land Acquisition Act interest was to be allowed. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhilwara after perusing relevant provision of law came to the conclusion that the respondent is entitled for interest in view of the mandatory provision. I see no reason to interfere in the order impugned dated 23.11.1998 because the order is perfectly in consonance with the mandatory provision of law. Hence, this misc. appeal is dismissed. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. A.K. Chouhan/- A.K. Chouhan/-
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: appeal is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Land Acquisition Act; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. 47 r. 1.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Rajasthan High Court, on 12 Apr 2010. The bench was GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS.
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.