Smti Chitra Baruah vs The Collector Kamrup And Anr
2024 Latest Caselaw 5936 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Smti Chitra Baruah vs The Collector Kamrup And Anr on 14 August, 2024

                                                                       Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010192042018




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
     (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 Case No. : LA.App./49/2018

            SMTI CHITRA BARUAH
            D/O LATE KRISHNA KANTA BARUAH, R/O NARIKAL BASTI, P.O.
            GEETANAGAR, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN 781027

            VERSUS

            THE COLLECTOR KAMRUP AND ANR
            KAMRUP, AMINGAON, PIN 781031

            2:CHIEF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER
             DEFENCE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION (DRDO)
            AKBAR ROAD
             POST BOX NO. 1569
             SECONDRABAD
             PIN 50000

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. SHEELADITYA, MS. K DAS

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. C K S BARUAH,




                                   BEFORE
                      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

                                          ORDER

14.08.2024

Heard Mr. Sheeladitya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.R. Gogoi, learned Government Advocate for the respondent No. 2.

2. In this appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Page No.# 2/2

appellant has put to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the judgment and decree dated 31.05.2017, passed by the learned District Judge, Kamrup at Amingaon, in Case No. 20/2014 (Old No. 22/2013), arising out of L.A. Case No. 06/2009.

3. Perused the memo of appeal as well as the grounds mentioned therein and also perused the impugned judgment and decree dated 31.05.2017.

4. Mr. Sheeladitya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in respect of condonation of delay, the appellant has preferred one I.A. and in the said I.A. the delay was condoned and Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel for D.R.D.O. had entered appearance, but the name of Mr. Keyal is not reflected in the cause-list.

5. In view of above, it is provided that the Registry shall list the matter after 4 (four) weeks, reflecting the name of Mr. Keyal for the D.R.D.O. in the cause- list.

6. The Registry shall call for the record from the learned trial court.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant