The State Of Maharashtra, The ... vs Sakharam Govind Shirsath Since ...
2007 Latest Caselaw 755 Bom

JUDGMENT

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.

1. The claimants claim to be the owners of the agricultural lands falling in revenue estate of village Kavanai, Taluka Igatpuri, District Nashik. Their lands were acquired by the State Government vide notification dated 25th May 1994 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Special Land Acquisition Officer vide his award dated 20th October 1995 awarded compensation to the claimants by categorising the lands into 5 categories and awarded compensation at different rate of Rs 35,000 to Rs.65,000. References under Section 18 of the Act were preferred by the claimant which were referred by the Collector to the court of competent jurisdiction. The 5th Additional District Judge Nasik vide his judgment dated 31st August 2004 granted additional compensation to the claimants while categorising the lands into 3 categories, at the rate of Rs 1.20,000, 1,30,000 and 1,50,000 per hectare depending upon the revenue to which the lands were assessed. The State of Maharashtra being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Reference Court filed first appeals in this Court. As the claimants were also dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation for compulsory acquisition of their lands. During the pendency of the appeals, some of them filed Cross Objections. Cross Objection No. 13417 of 1007 in First Appeal No. 817 of 2005 and Cross Objection No 13721 of 2007 in First Appeal No. 940 of 2005 arise out of judgment of the reference court in LAR No.384 of 1997 and 528 of l997 respectively. These two Cross objections which were listed for hearing alongwith the appeals preferred by the State, were barred by time. Vide judgment of even date, the State appeals have been dismissed, while the Cross objections filed by the claimants therein have been accepted and delay in filing the Cross objections was also condoned.

2. The judgment in those appeals was reserved on 20th June 2007. All the above Cross objections were filed after the period of limitation for filing of Cross objections had been lapsed. Some of the Cross objections were filed during the pendency of the appeals while others were filed when the appeals were being heard and even after the appeals were reserved for judgment. In the judgment in First Appeal No. 896 of 2005 and 940 of 2005, after a detailed discussion the court granted the following reliefs:

In view of our above detailed discussion we are of the considered view that all the appeals filed by the State are liable to be dismissed while the Cross objections/ Cross appeals of the claimants are to partially succeed and the claimants would be entitled to receive uniform compensation at the rate of Rs.1.50 lacs per hector. The claimants would also be entitled to statutory benefits of Sections 23 and 23(1A) of the Act as also 30% solatium of the land value. The claimants shall also entitle to interest on the enhanced amount in terms of Section 28 of the Act. All the appeals of the State are dismissed while the Cross objections/Cross appeals of the claimants are partially allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case we leave the parties to bear their own costs.

3. All the above referred Cross objections filed in the present appeals are also barred by time but for the reasons stated in the above judgment, we are inclined to condone the delay even in these Cross objections. Primarily the reason given by the claimants is inadequacy of finance. According to them they had been deprived by compulsory acquisition of their agricultural land which was the main source of their livelihood and they had not been paid compensation for considerable time. There is no doubt that the land was acquired in the year 1994 whereafter compensation determined by the Collector, even according to the respondents, was paid in the year 1995 and the enhanced compensation has not been received by the claimants, as pointed out during the course of hearing, till date. Considering these facts the Bench dealing with those appeals held as under:

It can hardly be disputed that the lands which were the principal source of their income have been taken away by the State contrary to their consent. It can hardly be expected of the State to oppose such a request particularly when their Appeals arising from the same judgment are being heard on merits. It is a settled percept of law that provisions of Limitation Act should be construed liberally so as to ensure that justice does not suffer. The Supreme Court has often said that certain amounts of latitude is not impermissible and the expression "sufficient cause" may be considered with pragmatism in justice- oriented approach rather than technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining the delay. In some cases, the Supreme Court also condoned the delay of nearly 679 days. Reference can be made to the cases of The Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, Kerala v. K.V. Ayisumma and State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and Ors. . The cause shown by the claimants can safely be construed as a sufficient cause emerging from the limitations relating to their needs seen in the light of the past events that their lands were acquired against their wishes and whereafter even compensation was not paid to them for quite some time. It is not even in dispute before us that till date they have actually not received the enhanced compensation granted to them by the Reference Court. For these reasons, we have no hesitation in accepting their application for condonation of delay. Another reason for condoning the delay is that the State appeals arising from the same judgment were being heard by the Court when this request was made on behalf of the claimants. Thus, even the interest of justice would demand that the cross- objections of the Claimants are heard along with the State appeals. Consequently, the delay in filing the cross objections is condoned. The cross objections are admitted for hearing.

4. As similar circumstances are stated even in the present Cross Objections for condonation of delay, while adopting the same reasoning, we also condone the delay in filing these Cross Objections. Once the delay in Cross Objections is condoned, the obvious result would be that the claimants/cross objectors would be entitled to the same relief as granted to the claimants in those appeals and cross objections which were heard together. These Cross Objections are thus allowed in terms of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Yashwant Kahnu Shirsath (supra). However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.