LexLords NRI Legal Services Chandigarh By NRI Legal Services LexLords
State of Uttar Pradesh[17], State of West Bengal v. He confirmed, that the said shifting had taken place about fifteen days prior to the NRI Legal Services occurrence. (3) The determination of compensation for any land under sub-section (2) shall not in any way affect the determination of compensation in respect of other lands in the same locality or elsewhere in accordance with the other provisions of this Act. It was, however, not done; Fourthly, the High Court went into the factual question by referring to clause 26 of the agreement for holding that the arbitrator passed an award contrary NRI Legal Services to clause 26 and thereby traveled beyond the terms of agreement which constituted a NRI legal services misconduct on his part.
He testified, that Mohan Lal " PW-15, used to object to their behaviour, and therefore, the accused-appellant " Brij Lal and the co-accused " Kashi Ram, were inimical to Mohan Lal " PW-15. NRI Legal Services It was not permissible in law; Thirdly, the High Court should have confined its inquiry to find out as to whether any NRI Legal Services misconduct was committed by the arbitrator and, if so, how and in what manner. Act and the service of notice shall be kept in records and shall also submit a demand of the compensation amount to the Land (1990) 1 SCC 433 and Ravindra Kumar Gupta Secondly, the High Court acted like an appellate Court and virtually treated as if the appeal arose directly against the award and then proceeded to examine all factual findings of the arbitrator by appreciating the evidence.
Clause 26, therefore, had nothing to do with the claims filed by the appellants. He pointed out, that Brij Lal was adamant, and had refused to stop. He (Mohan Lal " PW-15) had given up living in his allotted quarter, and had moved to his (Mohan Ram " PW-1s) house along with his family, as his tenants. The necessary ingredients for the application of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this court in the following decisions, stand satisfied: Without going into the controversy with regard to physical possession, this much is clear that the award was made more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and the compensation has also not been paid.
It was an admitted fact that the appellant did not assign the agreement to any third person. He also stated, that Mohan Lal " PW-15 had taken him to make a representation against Brij Lal, to the Overseer of the Irrigation Department. As soon as the award is announced, the Land Acquisition Collector shall compulsorily issue notice to the interested persons u/s 12 of the L. In any event, in the absence of any finding recorded by the arbitrator and the Trial Court, such issue could not have been gone into for the first time in appeal by the High Court.
This finding, in our view, is, on the face of it, untenable in law for the reason, inter alia, that this objection was neither raised before the arbitrator and nor before the Trial Court in the manner in which it was raised for the first time in the High Court. That apart, it has otherwise no substance on facts for the simple reason that it being a question of fact, the same could not be examined in appeal; Fifthly, the High Court failed to see that clause 26 only prohibits the appellant from assigning the agreement to any third person.
