9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Disputed questions of fact and limitation in a writ petition. 2. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal. 3. Merits of the controversy regarding possession of land and compensation. 4. Validity of a mandamus in the case. 5. Rights of the appellant under Section 299(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935. Analysis: 1. The case involved disputed questions of fact and a dispute regarding limitation in a writ petition filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The appellant sought compensation for land acquired by the Punjab Government in 1935. The Collector's order stated that no acquisition order was available, and the appellant had been requesting compensation until 1971, leading to the writ petition. The Single Judge dismissed the petition citing disputed facts and suggested a regular suit for redress. 2. A preliminary objection was raised regarding the delay in filing the appeal. The appellant filed the appeal one day late due to a mistaken impression of the law by the counsel. The Court allowed the appeal, considering the delay caused by a bona fide mistake and condoned the delay, treating the appeal as filed within the limitation period. 3. The merits of the controversy revolved around possession of the land and compensation. The State admitted the land belonged to the appellant, was acquired, and no compensation was paid. The Court found no disputed facts requiring examination and held that no limitation applied to the writ petition seeking a mandamus to compel the authorities to perform their duty. 4. The Court emphasized the appellant's right to a mandamus, citing British jurisprudence that no executive action can deprive a citizen of property without legal support. The Court affirmed the appellant's entitlement to compensation or restoration of possession based on the law. 5. The appellant's rights under Section 299(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935, were highlighted, stating that no person shall be deprived of property except by authority of law. The Court directed the authorities to determine and pay compensation or restore possession of the land to the appellant, based on the lawful acquisition in 1935 or through fresh acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In conclusion, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Single Judge's order, granted the writ petition, and issued a mandamus to determine and pay compensation or restore possession of the land to the appellant, emphasizing the appellant's legal rights and entitlement to compensation or possession based on the law.
|
