Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 126944 (ALL)

SATYA KUMAR DARBARI v. COURT OF PRESIDING OFFICER LAND ACQUISITION REHABILIT. AND RESETTLEM. AUTHO. COURT LKO AND 3 OTHERS

A227/1203/2024 · 2025-01-08

Pankaj Bhatia

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Court No. - 7 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1203 of 2024 Petitioner :- Satya Kumar Darbari Respondent :- Court Of Presiding Officer Land Acquisition Rehabilit. And Resettlem. Autho. Court Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pritish Kumar,Amal Rastogi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ratnesh Chandra Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Shri Abhay Pratap Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsels for the respondents. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 19.02.2024 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for payment of balance 50% of consideration deposited was rejected. The fact in brief are that in First Appeal No. 96 of 2023 direction was issued for depositing the amount within a period of six weeks and it was further stated that 50% of the said amount shall be released in favour of the respondent on furnishing necessary security. It is the case of the petitioner that in terms of the directions given by the appellate court the amounts were not deposited as such an application was filed for execution and in the process of execution the accounts were attached and the amounts were recovered by the executing court. It is stated that as the conditions of deposit were not complied with by the appellant of First Appeal No. 96 of 2023, an application was filed for releasing of the entire amount. The said application has been rejected by the trial court mainly on account of pendency of the First Appeal No. 96 of 2023. Prima facie the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be correct. However, in view of the order dated 28.04.2023 being subsisting it would not be appropriate for this Court to direct release of the amount. As such, the petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to move appropriate application seeking clarification from the court where the first First Appeal No. 96 of 2023 is pending and seek appropriate directions from the appellate court. List this case after three months. In the meanwhile, the petitioner may seek clarification as directed above. Order Date :- 8.1.2025 J. K. Dinkar Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench