Kondopant Vs. Arjuna & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Review Petition No.1347 Of 1995
In
Civil Appeal No.2446 Of 1978
In
Civil Appeal No.2446 Of 1978
Petitioner: Kondopant
Respondent: Arjuna & Ors.
Apeal: Review Petition No.1347 Of 1995
In
Civil Appeal No.2446 Of 1978
In
Civil Appeal No.2446 Of 1978
Judges: K. RAMASWAMY & B.L. HANSARIA,JJ
Date of Judgment: Sep 13, 1995
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Review petition – Ceiling on land – Surplus land – Respondent was given liberty to file the review petition in case he was found to be within the ceiling limit – Fact not disputed – Additional grounds raised and the same could not be gone into – Review petition dismissed.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. our order dated May 2, 1995 we had stated that Shri Parekh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, had raised ground No.5 and also produced a certified copy to show that the respondent was declared to be a surplus holder and he was in excess of the land under the Land Ceiling Act. The surplus land was assigned to the appellants. Since counsel for the review petitioner, viz., the respondents in the S.L.P., had reported that in spite of their contracting the party, they could not get any response from them, we had stated that the declaration of the respondents as a surplus holder is correct and in case he was found to be within the ceiling limit, liberty was given to him to file review petition within a period of two months from today. The said fact is not disputed in the review petition. But additional grounds have now got to be raised. Therefore, that would not be a ground for us to review the order.
2. The review petition is accordingly dismissed.
1. our order dated May 2, 1995 we had stated that Shri Parekh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, had raised ground No.5 and also produced a certified copy to show that the respondent was declared to be a surplus holder and he was in excess of the land under the Land Ceiling Act. The surplus land was assigned to the appellants. Since counsel for the review petitioner, viz., the respondents in the S.L.P., had reported that in spite of their contracting the party, they could not get any response from them, we had stated that the declaration of the respondents as a surplus holder is correct and in case he was found to be within the ceiling limit, liberty was given to him to file review petition within a period of two months from today. The said fact is not disputed in the review petition. But additional grounds have now got to be raised. Therefore, that would not be a ground for us to review the order.
2. The review petition is accordingly dismissed.
