AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned Counsel for the Appellants on objection raised by the office.
Office has raised objection that separate L.P.As. should have been filed in the facts of this case and particularly in the light of the order dated 05.07.2004 passed in L.P.A. No. 698 of 2003.
Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that Appellants are the successors of a common ancestor and their claim to the land is based on one Title and therefore, it will be futile to file separate L.P.As. even when the writ Petitioners-Respondents chose to file separate writ petitions before the Single Bench of this Court.
It is also submitted that in original proceedings five petitions were filed by the Respondents but the original Court decided the matter by a common order and the Appellate Court decided the appeals by a common judgment and the Revisional Court also decided the matter by a common order. The learned Single Judge of this Court also decided the writ petitions by a common Judgment; therefore, the Appellants may be permitted to prefer one appeal against the common judgment dated 25.02.2010.
We have considered the facts of the case and it is clear from the facts referred above that the five original applicants submitted five separate claim petitions on the basis of their own facts. For the convenience of the matter, they were decided by a common judgment by all the authorities below as well as by the learned Single Judge.
In the above facts, it is clear that the facts are independent of each of the original applicants who may have been imp leaded as Respondents generally herein, the result of the above original petitions are also different as out of five cases only in two cases compensation has been granted whereas in other matters relief on delivery of possession has been granted.
It may be true that the Court has ample power to permit preferring one appeal in such situation which is supported by the Hon''ble Supreme Court''s decision reported in Narhari and Others Vs. Shankar and Others, and otherwise also the Court has ample power to consolidate the matter on the ground of involvement of common question of fact or law.
But in the fitness of thing, it will be appropriate to direct the Appellant to file separate memo of appeal and the Appellants can be exempted from filing rest of all the other documents for the purpose of proceedings of each of the original appeal and there may be clarity for the purpose of deciding the L.P.A.
In view of the above reasons, the Appellants are permitted to file separate appeals by filing memo of appeal and the office is directed not to raise objection for not filing the rest of the set for L.P.A. and upon filing the other L.P. As. the same be tagged with this L.P.A.
In view of the above reasons, this appeal may be confined to W.P. (C) No. 910 of 2004 and name of the other Respondents who are not in the writ petition No. 910 of 2004 are deleted from this L.P.A. The Amended cause title may be filed by deleting the name of the unnecessary Respondents.