Naresh Kumar Vs Union of India

Naresh Kumar vs Union of India

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jul 14, 2010

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/905002

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/905002
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Ms. Gita Mittal ; Mr. J.R.Midha, J J.
Decided On: Jul 14, 2010
Case Number: WP (C) No.4592/2010 & CM No.9083/2010
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

LAND ACQUISITION - ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION - WITHDRAWAL OF DEPOSIT AMOUNT AFTER FURNISHING SECURITY - ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE -- It will be in the interest of justice if the Reference Court is directed to decide all the issues afresh after giving opportunity to the parties to adduce additional evidence.[Para 15] Th...

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Naresh Kumar

Advocate Ms. Rekha Palli, ; Ms. Punam Singh, ; Ms. Amrita Prakash, Advs.

Respondent

Union of India

Advocate Mr. Madan Gera, ; Mr. Ashok Singh, Advs.

Excerpt

land acquisition - enhancement of compensation - withdrawal of deposit amount after furnishing security - additional evidence -- it will be in the interest of justice if the reference court is directed to decide all the issues afresh after giving opportunity to the parties to adduce additional evidence.[para 15] the impugned judgment of the high court is set aside and the matter is remanded to the reference court with the direction that it shall pass fresh award after giving opportunity to the parties to produce additional evidence on all the issues. (ii) the reference court shall not entertain any unreasonable request made by either party for adjournment of the case and shall dispose of the matter within 6 months from the date of receipt/production of this judgment. (iii) the land owners shall be entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by the company after furnishing appropriate security to the satisfaction of the presiding officer of the reference court.[para 17].....examination by the department of medicine in the safdarjung hospital. the petitioner made a prayer to the respondents for conduct of a review medical board. 2. the petitioner's request has been rejected by the impugned order dated 12th april, 2010 by the respondents on the sole ground that the application for the review medical board was belated.3. having regard to the afore-noticed facts and circumstances, we are of the view that interests of justice merit that the petitioner's prayer for review medical board deserves to be considered on merits and ought not to be rejected on the sole ground that the same had been received belatedly. the petitioner has disputed the delay. however, for reasons of expediency and in the interest of justice, we are not going into the rival contentions on this issue.4. accordingly, we issue a direction to the respondents to consider the petition dated 18th march, 2010 of the petitioner making a prayer for a review medical board on merits and pass an order thereon within a period of six weeks. further action shall be taken by the respondents in accordance with the decision which is taken thereon.5. a request is made by learned counsel for the petitioner that having regard to the fact that the petitioner is located in a small village in district jhunjhunu, rajasthan, the order which is passed by the respondents on the petitioner's prayer for a review medical board, be communicated upon her office to enable her to inform the petitioner. this request is reasonable and is accepted.6. the respondents are directed to communicate the order which is passed on the petitioner's request for review medical board to the office of the learned counsel at the address disclosed in the present petition. this writ petition and application are allowed in the above terms. copy of this order be given dasti to the parties.

Full Judgment

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? No

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the No Digest?

ORDER (Oral)

1. The present petitioner had applied for appointment to the post of Constable (Bigular) in September-October, 2009. He is stated to have succeeded in the physical test, trade test and the written test which was conducted during the recruitment process. However, the petitioner was declared medically unfit by an order passed on 9th March, 2010 on the ground that his X-Ray depicted Bilateral Apical Reticulonodular Opacity also in mid lung zone. Placing reliance on his medical examination by the Department of Medicine in the Safdarjung Hospital. The petitioner made a prayer to the respondents for conduct of a review medical board.

2. The petitioner's request has been rejected by the impugned order dated 12th April, 2010 by the respondents on the sole ground that the application for the review medical board was belated.

3. Having regard to the afore-noticed facts and circumstances, we are of the view that interests of justice merit that the petitioner's prayer for review medical board deserves to be considered on merits and ought not to be rejected on the sole ground that the same had been received belatedly. The petitioner has disputed the delay. However, for reasons of expediency and in the interest of justice, we are not going into the rival contentions on this issue.

4. Accordingly, we issue a direction to the respondents to consider the petition dated 18th March, 2010 of the petitioner making a prayer for a review medical board on merits and pass an order thereon within a period of six weeks. Further action shall be taken by the respondents in accordance with the decision which is taken thereon.

5. A request is made by learned counsel for the petitioner that having regard to the fact that the petitioner is located in a small village in district Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, the order which is passed by the respondents on the petitioner's prayer for a review medical board, be communicated upon her office to enable her to inform the petitioner. This request is reasonable and is accepted.

6. The respondents are directed to communicate the order which is passed on the petitioner's request for review medical board to the office of the learned counsel at the address disclosed in the present petition. This writ petition and application are allowed in the above terms. Copy of this order be given dasti to the parties.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2010 Same Parties Naresh Kumar vs Union of India Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Ms. Gita Mittal ; Mr. J.R.Midha, J J.

Land Acquisition In the interest of Having regard to Has been Be all