https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302485 Landowners who accepted the acquisition award, did not seek reference, and allowed statutory remedies and limitation to lapse could not claim parity with a later settlement reached by a different class of litigants in connected proceedings. The Court treated the distinction between parties and non-parties as material and held that delay, acquiescence, and circumvention of the statutory framework barred extension of that settlement to the petitioners. It further held that Order 41 Rule 33 CPC could not be invoked by persons who were not parties to the original proceedings, since that power does not enlarge relief in favour of strangers to the litigation. The petitions were rejected as belated and misconceived. en-us Mon, 08 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Apr 2023 18:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302485 Landowners who accepted the acquisition award, did not seek reference, and allowed statutory remedies and limitation to lapse could not claim parity with a later settlement reached by a different class of litigants in connected proceedings. The Court treated the distinction between parties and non-parties as material and held that delay, acquiescence, and circumvention of the statutory framework barred extension of that settlement to the petitioners. It further held that Order 41 Rule 33 CPC could not be invoked by persons who were not parties to the original proceedings, since that power does not enlarge relief in favour of strangers to the litigation. The petitions were rejected as belated and misconceived. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 08 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302485