Table of Contents
Ashamed that appeal from 2010 is pending: The Supreme Court while unfavorably out rightly adjourning.
On Wednesday, Supreme Court prioritized the concern on one of the advocates who is representing Rajasthan as they requested for an adjournment from the appeal filed in the year 2010 [Urban Improvement Trust v. Vidhya Devi and Others].
At the same time the division bench comprising of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra refused to grant any adjournment as requested by the state, the rejection itself was thing to be ashamed of since the appeal was still in the process of being heard by the Court.
“We are a nation that takes immense pride and our cognitive faculties is Our Constitution 2010 Appeal is still pending. Citizens are required to seek adjournment. We should not seek or give adjournment at that hour,” he explained
Subsequently, the Benchinvoked the appeal.
This case concerned the approach of acquiring the land, it started from 1976. The State constituted a tribunal in 1981 where the lost land of the Respondents was estimated and set for compensation, amounting to the specific amount of Rs.90,000/-
In 1997 the Matter of adjudication is that the State paid the said amount as well as interest. The question of whether agreements had been violated or not was the subject of the friction. A lone-judge of the Rajasthan High Court validated the State’s stand pertaining to the land acquisition proceedings and was done by upholding the same while the Division Bench was in favour of the people affected by land acquisition.
Rajasthan got upset in 2010 and appealed the present matter o the highest court of the land.
It is in this hearing in which the Supreme Court asked Mrs. Archana Pathak Dave who was the senior advocate appearing for the state the current status of the land under reckoning. But in her reply, she sought time from the supreme court that also she could get the instructions about it.
According to him, this was the reason for the delay in the hearing of the case and he was also hinting that the High Court had recorded that RM Lodha who is the former Chief Justice of India was the former counsel in this case before the High Court.
“We have here the Lodha Justice who has been an advocate before High Court earlier. He then proceeded to retire as a CJI of this court and now he wants a time to get instructions. Is this what you are concerned about?” Justice Pardiwala countered.
Senior counsels Raju Ramachandran contended for the appellants that one of the cuttings of the state was rendered by Justice R.M. Lodha’s father, as he was a judge of the Rajasthan High Court, when he served justice as Judge SK Lodha.
“And that determination of judgment is the one that the father of the Honourable Justice Justice RS Lodha, Justice SK Lodha,” the advocate for the petitioner-appellants stated.
The Court far listened down the case for over 40 minutes after which it reserved a verdict.
The Court also sent both parties, the complainant and the investigators, to submit any other information or document regarding the case within 10 days.
