9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (2) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the petitioner for the alleged improvements, effected by him in the disputed land since his purchase. 3. The lower appellate court dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the aforesaid order of the learned trial Judge, allowing pre-emption in favour of the opposite parties, and upheld the said order for pre-emption. It also allowed the opposite parties' cross-objection against the grant of compensation by the learned trial Judge and dismissed the petitioner's claim in that respect. 4. The petitioner then obtained the present Rule, challenging the preemption order in question and disallowance of compensation. 5. In support of the Rule, several points were urged by Mr. Lala. The principal point, however, was the question of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... substantial improvements in the disputed land since his purchase. 10. In our view, however, on the materials before us, the instant Rule must fail. 11. On the question of vires of Section 24, the matter at present seems to be concluded against the petitioner by the decision of the Supreme Court, reported in Shibsankar Nandy v. Prabartak Sangha, [1967]2SCR558 , and, although Mr. Lala wanted to raise this question on a ground, different from that, actually and specifically considered by the Supreme Court in the above decision, it is clear that, so long as the said decision stands, this Court cannot go against it upon the footing that a particular aspect was not considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the said decision. We wou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould overrule also this submission of Mr. Lala. 14. On the point of limitation, the matter appears to be concluded by the decision of the Special Bench of this Court in Asmat Ali v. Mujahar Ali 52 CWN 64, and, accordingly, this point also must be decided against the petitioner. 15. On the question of the opposite parties' occupation or possession of contiguous plots, the finding of fact has concurrently been made in favour of the opposite parties by the two courts below and the same has to be accepted. But a point was raised that the opposite parties' title to such occupation or possession had not been established and reference was made to the cadastral survey records for the purpose. The revisional records, however, are in favour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
