The Supreme Court Today (May 15th) expressed its displeasure when an advocate appearing for the State of Rajasthan sought an adjournment in an appeal pending since 2010. “We feel extremely ashamed that a 2010 appeal is pending and we are being asked to give adjournment. We cannot give adjournment in this 2010 matter,”: Justice Pardiwala stated.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today expressed its displeasure when an advocate appearing for the State of Rajasthan sought an adjournment in an appeal that has been pending since 2010.
A Division Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra firmly refused the adjournment request, expressing embarrassment over the prolonged delay in the case.
“We feel extremely ashamed that a 2010 appeal is pending and we are being asked to give adjournment. We cannot give adjournment in this 2010 matter,”
-Justice Pardiwala stated.
The Bench then proceeded to hear the appeal, which pertained to land acquisition proceedings dating back to 1976. In 1981, the State of Rajasthan decided to compensate the respondents with Rs 90,000 for acquiring their land. The State claimed to have paid this amount with interest by 1997, but a dispute arose regarding this payment.
A single judge of the Rajasthan High Court had initially ruled in favor of the State by upholding the land acquisition proceedings. However, a Division Bench of the High Court later ruled in favor of the present respondents. Dissatisfied with this outcome, the State of Rajasthan approached the Supreme Court in 2010 with the current appeal.
During the hearing, when the Supreme Court inquired about the current status of the land in question, Senior Advocate Archana Pathak Dave, representing the State, sought additional time to seek instructions. In response, Justice Pardiwala criticized the delay and highlighted a significant detail from the case history, noting,
“Here you see that Justice RM Lodha has appeared as a counsel in this case before High Court. He retired as a CJI of this court and now you are seeking time to get instructions. What is this?”
Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for the respondents, added that one of the cases the State was relying on was rendered by Justice RM Lodha’s father, Justice SK Lodha, when he served as a judge of the Rajasthan High Court.
“The judgment which the State are relying upon is the one by the father of Justice RM Lodha, Justice SK Lodha,”
-the advocate for the private respondents stated.
The Court then proceeded to hear the matter for about 40 minutes before reserving its verdict. It also directed the parties to submit any additional details or documents related to the case within ten days.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Supreme Court
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
