https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457613 Writ petitions under Article 226 were held to be an inappropriate route for seeking impleadment in pending land acquisition appeals arising from references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The proper course was to move the appellate court by an appropriate application in the already pending appeals, rather than pursue a collateral writ challenge. The Court declined to examine the merits of the claimed right to impleadment in the writ proceedings and left the parties free to seek the same relief before the appellate court. The writ petitions were therefore dismissed as not maintainable. en-us Fri, 17 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Sep 2024 15:49:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457613 Writ petitions under Article 226 were held to be an inappropriate route for seeking impleadment in pending land acquisition appeals arising from references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The proper course was to move the appellate court by an appropriate application in the already pending appeals, rather than pursue a collateral writ challenge. The Court declined to examine the merits of the claimed right to impleadment in the writ proceedings and left the parties free to seek the same relief before the appellate court. The writ petitions were therefore dismissed as not maintainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 17 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457613