STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. versus RAJ SINGH AND ANR. ETC.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 210 · Decided: 08-07-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. 
v. 
RAJ SINGH AND ANR. ETC. 
JULY 8, 1996 
jK. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, J.J.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Sections 26(2), 53 and 54. 
Code of Civil Procedure 1908: Section 2(2). 
Land Acquisition-Awarlf-Ap11eal agaillsf:-Dela;-Appella11t filing all 
application for certified copy of decree-Delay Oil the pwt of civil cowt to 
draw up decree-Appellant filing Memorandum of appeal without 
decree-Delay in filing decree but decree filed as soon as it was supplielf-Dis-
missal of application for condonation of dela5Appeal-Held an appeal filed 
D under Section 54 of the Act shall be accompanied by a memorandum of 
grounds together 1vith ·chc judgnicnt and decree as envisaged under Order 41 
Rule 1, CFC Unless the copy of the Judgment is dispensed with-By fiction 
of law the award of civil cowt made under Section 26(1) shall be deemed to 
be a dccre~When the civil carat had not Sll)Jplied the decree drawn as 
E required under Order 2 Rule 2, the limitation begins to JUI! from the date of 
the supply of the ce1tified copies of the judgment and decree-The time taken 
by the cowt for their supply from the date of application till the date of supply 
should be excluded ill computation of the peiiod af limitation. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9783 of 
F 
1996 Etc. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.10.93 of the Rajasthan High 
Court in S.B. (C) Misc. A. No. 402 of 1993. 
Aruneshwar Gupta for the Appellants. 
S.M. Jain, Sushi! Kr. .Jain, B.D. Sharma Adv. (NP) and L.C. 
Agrawala for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
H 
Jn C.A. 9522/96 (@ SLP (C} No. 3626/96) 
210 
STATEv. RAJ SINGH 
211 
Leave granted. 
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the learned 
single Judge of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur made on December 
A 
15, 1995 in Miscellaneous (Def) No. 631 of 1993. It is enough to narrate B 
the salient facts for the purpose of disposal of this case. 
Notification under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 
1953 was published on .I anuary 18, 1982 acquiring a total extent of 2570 
bighas 15 biswas of land in village Desh, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur for public 
purpose. On in reference, the Land Acquisition Court determined the 
compensation by its award and decree dated July 28, 1992. An application 
for supply of certified copies of judgment and decree was filed and on 
supply of a copy of the judgment the appeal had been filed with a delay of 
147 days. When the matter had come up before the court, it was pointed 
c 
out by the court by order dated October 6, 1993 that the decree had not D 
been filed along with the memorandum of appeal and the court, therefore, 
directed the appellant to produce the decree with three weeks from that 
date. It would appear and an affidavit was filed in the High Court that in 
spite of the appellant filing an application for furnishing certified copy of 
the decree, the civil court had not drawn up the decree. The matter came 
up again for orders on January 11, 1995 and the learned Advocate General 
had pointed out the omission on the part of the civil Court to draw up the 
decree, in spite of their having applied for supply of the certified copy of 
the decree. Thereon, by order dated January 31, 1995 the High Court 
directed the civil court to prepare the decree within four weeks from that 
date and to supply the same. Accordingly, decree was prepared by the civil 
Court on January 31, 1995 and the same came to be filed on supply in the 
High Court as directed by order dated January 11, 1995. When the matter 
had come up before another learned Judge, by the impugned order he had 
recalled the orders of the court dated October 6, 1993 and January 11, 1995 
E 
F 
and dismissed the application for condonation of delay. Thus these ap-
G 
peals by special leave. 
It is contended by Shri Aruneshwar Gupta, learned counsel for the 
Stale, that there is no delay in the eye of law since the appeals were already 
filed before the limitation began to run. The decree was prepared by the 
court on January 31, 1995 by which date the memorandum of appeal was H 
212 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A already filed and that the limitation had to run from the date when the 
decree was supplied. We find force in the contention. Shri Jain, learned 
senior counsel for the respondents, contended that by operation of Section
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.