2003 (10) TMI 666

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... on 5th June, 1980. The Respondents filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of the compensation. They thereafter also filed an appeal in the High Court against the Judgment of the Reference Court. On 2nd February, 1999 the Respondents filed a Writ Petition challenging the acquisition on the ground that the urgency clause could not have been invoked. This Writ Petition has been allowed by the impugned Judgment. It was submitted that the order of the High Court was just and equitable. It was submitted that the Respondents had patiently waited for all these years in order to see whether the land was put to use for the purpose for which it was acquired. It was submitted that merely because the Res....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the purpose for which it was acquired, on ground of that litigation. Merely because this fact was mentioned by the State it did be afford Respondents an excuse to justify delay and latches on their part. It was next submitted that even though there were delay and latches on the part of the Respondents they were justified in filing the Writ Petition as the fraud was being played by the State and the acquiring body. It was submitted that the land was sought to be transferred to some other body even though the acquisition was on behalf of Appellants. It was submitted that the Respondents filed the Writ Petition as this fraud came to their knowledge. We see no substance in this contention also. In the Writ Petition there is no ground of f....