1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order dated 03.08.2015 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Writ Petition Nos. 1929 of 2015 and other allied writ petitions, preferred by...

2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that while declaring that the acquisition proceedings under the Act, 1894 is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, the High Court...

2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that it was the specific case on behalf of the appellants and so stated in the counter affidavit before the High Court that the possession of the land...

2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that a specific objection was raised on behalf of the appellants - original respondents that the original writ petitioner being subsequent purchaser is...

2. We have gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. Before the High Court, it was the specific case on behalf of the appellants - original respondents that the possession of the subject land was...

2. That the dispute is with respect to the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 717 (3-02), 718/1 (3-05), 756/2/1 (2-17) and 757/1 (3-07) measuring 12 bighas and 11 biswas in village Chattarpur, New Delhi.

2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and even from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Land Acquisition Collector filed before the High Court, which is reproduced by the High Court in the...

1. Leave granted.

1. Leave granted.

2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that while declaring that the acquisition proceedings under the Act, 1894 is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, the High Court...