Pradeep Kumar vs.union of India and Ors.

Pradeep Kumar vs Union of India and Ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Feb 23, 2018

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1213031

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1213031
Court: Delhi High Court
Decided On: Feb 23, 2018
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

Pradeep Kumar

Respondent

Union of India and Ors.

Excerpt

.....had approached the central administrative tribunal, new delhi which vide order of 13th september, 2017 (annexure a/12) had directed the respondent to consider the case of petitioners in light of judgment in original application no.215/2017 decided on 21st february, 2017 and the order passed in writ petition nos.4829/2017, 5948/2017 and 6086/2017. vide impugned order of 5th december, 2017 (annexure a/1), a speaking order has been passed in pursuance to the directions issued vide aforesaid order (annexure a/12).3. at the outset, it was put to petitioners’ counsel as to why petitioners be not relegated to avail of the remedy against impugned order before the central administrative tribunal. learned counsel for petitioners places reliance upon a decision of a division bench of this court in ajay kumar mishra vs. union of india & ors. 2016 scc online del 6553 to submit that the case of petitioners is covered by this decision which has not been adverted to in the impugned order.4. be that as it may. in ajay kumar (supra), question of jurisdiction was not raised. whereas in the instant cases, it does arise. in the considered opinion of this court, the petitioners who had approached the central administrative tribunal, new delhi in the first instance, have to seek relief as sought in this petition before central administrative tribunal.5. in view of the aforesaid, it is deemed appropriate to relegate w.p.(c) no.1716/2018 & conn.matters page 2 of 3 petitioners to avail of the remedy before central administrative tribunal. considering the nature of relief sought, it is expected that if an original application is filed by petitioners, then it will be decided expeditiously.6. with aforesaid directions, the three above captioned petitions and the applications are disposed of. (sunil gaur) judge february23 2018 mamta w.p.(c) no.1716/2018 & conn.matters page 3 of 3

Full Judgment

$~30, 32 & 33 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + + + Date of Order: February 23, 2018 W.P.(C) 1716/2018 & CM Nos.7134-36/2018 MUKESH Through: Mr.Ankit Kohli, Advocate ........ Petitioner

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS

Through: Mr.Akshay Makhija, CGSC for R-1 to R-4 W.P.(C) 1732/2018 & CM Nos.7181-83/2018 PRADEEP KUMAR Through: Mr.Ankit Kohli, Advocate ........ Petitioner

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS

Through: Mr.Akshay Makhija, CGSC for R-1 to R-4 W.P.(C) 1738/2018 & CM Nos.7195-97/2018 Through: Mr.Ankit Kohli, Advocate ........ Petitioner

RAJESH KUMAR OJHA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus ........ RESPONDENTS

Through: Mr.Akshay Makhija, CGSC for R-1 to R-4 ORDER

(ORAL) W.P.(C) No.1716/2018 & conn.matters Page 1 of 3 1. The subject matter of the above captioned three petitions is identical, therefore, with consent of learned counsel for parties, these petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

2. In the first round of litigation, petitioners had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi which vide order of 13th September, 2017 (Annexure A/12) had directed the respondent to consider the case of petitioners in light of judgment in Original Application No.215/2017 decided on 21st February, 2017 and the order passed in Writ Petition Nos.4829/2017, 5948/2017 and 6086/2017. Vide impugned order of 5th December, 2017 (Annexure A/1), a speaking order has been passed in pursuance to the directions issued vide aforesaid order (Annexure A/12).

3. At the outset, it was put to petitioners’ counsel as to why petitioners be not relegated to avail of the remedy against impugned order before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Learned counsel for petitioners places reliance upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Ajay Kumar Mishra Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6553 to submit that the case of petitioners is covered by this decision which has not been adverted to in the impugned order.

4. Be that as it may. In Ajay Kumar (supra), question of jurisdiction was not raised. Whereas in the instant cases, it does arise. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioners who had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi in the first instance, have to seek relief as sought in this petition before Central Administrative Tribunal.

5. In view of the aforesaid, it is deemed appropriate to relegate W.P.(C) No.1716/2018 & conn.matters Page 2 of 3 petitioners to avail of the remedy before Central Administrative Tribunal. Considering the nature of relief sought, it is expected that if an Original Application is filed by petitioners, then it will be decided expeditiously.

6. With aforesaid directions, the three above captioned petitions and the applications are disposed of. (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE FEBRUARY23 2018 mamta W.P.(C) No.1716/2018 & conn.matters Page 3 of 3

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2018 Same Parties Pradeep Kumar vs Union of India and Ors. Same Subject Land Acquisition