Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Rajesh Lilhare Vs. Union of India

Rajesh Lilhare vs Union of India

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided May 13, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1046164

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rajesh Lilhare

Respondent

Union of India

Excerpt

writ petition no ::7971. / 2013 rajesh lilhare and others versus union of india and others 13.05.2013. shri pradeep naveriya for the petitioners.shri govind patel for the respondents. petitioners claim to be owner of various pieces of land situated in samnapur, district balaghat. it is stated that for the purpose of laying down of a railway line, land of the petitioners was acquired. contending that as per the policy formulated by the respondents/railway administration, compassionate appointment has to be granted to persons, from whom the land was acquired and further submitted that the claim of the petitioners for grant of compassionate appointment in accordance with circular - annexure p/11 dated 16.7.2010 is not being considered, this writ petition has been filed. shri govind patel, learned counsel appears for the respondents and on hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that the claim of the petitioners for grant of appointment in accordance with policies and circulars.as referred to hereinabove, is still pending and a final decision is yet to be taken in the matter. under such circumstances, without entering into the controvers.on merits, the competent authority of the railway administration is directed to decide the claim of the petitioners.if not already done, in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. with the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of. certified copy as per rules. (rajendra menon) judge aks/-

Full Judgment

Writ Petition No ::

7971. / 2013 Rajesh Lilhare and others versus Union of India and others 13.05.2013.

Shri Pradeep Naveriya for the petitioneRs.Shri Govind Patel for the respondents.

Petitioners claim to be owner of various pieces of land situated in Samnapur, District Balaghat.

It is stated that for the purpose of laying down of a railway line, land of the petitioners was acquired.

Contending that as per the policy formulated by the respondents/Railway Administration, compassionate appointment has to be granted to persons, from whom the land was acquired and further submitted that the claim of the petitioners for grant of compassionate appointment in accordance with Circular - Annexure P/11 dated 16.7.2010 is not being considered, this writ petition has been filed.

Shri Govind Patel, learned counsel appears for the respondents and on hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that the claim of the petitioners for grant of appointment in accordance with policies and circulaRs.as referred to hereinabove, is still pending and a final decision is yet to be taken in the matter.

Under such circumstances, without entering into the controveRs.on merits, the competent authority of the Railway Administration is directed to decide the claim of the petitioneRs.if not already done, in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.

(RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial