AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Since all these appeals arose out of common judgment, the same have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
We have heard Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants at length.
These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 27.6.2005 passed by the learned single Judge, whereby, the compensation amount assessed by the Land Acquisition Judge, has been affirmed and the appeals have been dismissed.
Mr. Mahto, learned senior counsel assailed the impugned judgment mainly on the ground that admittedly the land was acquired by the appellant-company and no opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant being an interested party, in spite of the fact that the appellant intervened in the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Judge. Learned Counsel further submitted that some of the most important exhibits filed by the intervener have not been considered.
From perusal of the judgment, it appears that in the land acquisition case, appellant-Company filed an intervention petition and thereafter it was added as a party. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the appellant ever prayed for adducing any evidence, either oral or documentary. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant is also not in a position to say that even any application was filed making a prayer for adducing evidence.
In that view of the matter, since there is finding of fact arrived at by the Land Acquisition Judge, which has been affirmed by the learned single Judge after re-appreciating the entire evidence, we do not find any reason to again go to reappreciate the evidence in a Letters Patent Appeal.
These appeals are, therefore, dismissed.