Vidc Thr. Exe. Engineer, ... vs G.K. Lolage (Dead) Thr. Lrs. D.G. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 11402 Bom

                                                  17CAF 4325.2019.odt
                               1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

         CIVIL APPLICATION (F) NO. 4325 OF 2019
                           IN
        FIRST APPEAL (FA) ST. NO. 29897 OF 2018.

Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation,
through its Chief Executive Engineer,
Arunavati Project Division, Digras,
Yavatmal (Now Arunavati Irrigation
Division, Digras, District Yavatmal).
                                                        ...APPLICANT.

           Versus

1. Govindrao s/o Keshaorao Lolage (dead)
   thr. LRs

1-A Devidas s/o Govindrao Lolge (dead)
    thr. LRs

1-A[A] Smt. Kusum wd/o Devidas Lolage,
       aged adult, occupation unknown

1-A[B] Vinod s/o Devidas Lolage,
       aged adult, occupation unknown

1-A[C] Vijay s/o Devidas Lolage,
       aged adult, occupation unknown

1-A[D] Dr. Vilas s/o Devidas Lolage,
       aged adult, occupation unknown

1-A[E] Nandkumar s/o Devidas Lolage,
       aged adult, occupation unknown

1-A[F] Vishal s/o Devidas Lolage,
       aged adult, occupation unknown

1-A[G] Kishor s/o Devidas Lolage,
       aged adult, occupation unknown



::: Uploaded on - 01/09/2021               ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2021 08:24:36 :::
                                                       17CAF 4325.2019.odt
                                2




         All are R/o Datta Chowk, Arni,
         Tq. Arni, District Yavatmal.

1-A[H] Sau. Vidya d/o Madhukarrao Udawant,
       aged adult, occupation unknown,
       R/o Ambad, District Jalna.

1-A[J] Sau. Varsha d/o Rajendra Dahale,
       aged adult, occupation unknown,
       R/o Sarafa Line, Chikhali, District Buldhana.

1-B     Vishnu s/o Govindrao Lolage,
        aged 55 years, occupation unknown,
        Kurve Nagar, Galli No. 5, Below Shivanjali Canal,
        Near Bhagyashree Photo Studio, Pune - 52.

1-C      Ramdas s/o Govindrao Lolage,
         aged about 50 years, occupation unknown.

1-D     Bhanudas s/o Govindrao Lolage,
        aged about 43 years, occupation unknown.

1-E      Smt. Laxmibai wd/o Govindrao Lolage (dead)

1-F      Smt. Kausalya w/o Namdeo Shaventa,
         aged about 55 years, occupation unknown.

         1-C to 1-F are R/o Datta Chowk, Arni,
         Tq. Arni, District Yavatmal.

2.       Collector, Yavatmal.

3.       District Resettlement Officer, Yavatmal.

4.       The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
         Minor Irrigation Works No.2, Yavatmal,
         Tq. and District Yavatmal.

                                                      ...RESPONDENTS.




::: Uploaded on - 01/09/2021                   ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2021 08:24:36 :::
                                                                                   17CAF 4325.2019.odt
                                             3




------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri J.B. Kasat, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri T.M. Malnas, Advocate for respondent Nos.1-A[B] to 1-A[J], 1-B,
1-C and 1-D.
Ms. H.N. Jaipurkar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        CORAM : PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.

DATED : 20/08/2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard.

2. The facts relevant may be stated as under:-

i. The State of Maharashtra issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on 04/09/1987 for acquiring land of the respondents situated at Village Arni, Taluka Arni, District Yavatmal bearing Survey No. 88/1 (New S.No.92/1), ad measuring 3 hectare 80 R for rehabilitation of project affected persons of the villages Deorwada and Deorwadi.

ii. The Special Land Acquisition Officer declared the award under Section 11 of the Act on 05/02/1991.

17CAF 4325.2019.odt

iii. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs.72,782/- to the claimants for acquisition of their lands.

iv. The claimants being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded to them, preferred a reference under Section 18 of the Act. That the said reference came to be decided by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pusad, District Yavatmal on 18/12/1992, thereby awarded Rs.2,87,500/- per hectare towards enhanced compensation.

v. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and award of the reference Court, both, the claimants as well as the Corporation - Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, Yavatmal (hereinafter reffered to as "the V.I.D.C." in short) had challenged the said judgment and decree before this Court vide First Appeal No.213/1993 with Cross Objection St. No.16700/1994.

vi. This Court decided the aforesaid First Appeal with Cross Objection on 20/11/2014 and remanded the same back to the reference Court for fresh consideration.

vii. After giving an opportunity of hearing to

17CAF 4325.2019.odt

the claimants, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Darwah decided the reference vide its order dated 14/03/2016 passed in L.A.C. No. 153/1991, thereby awarded compensation @ Rs.9/- per square feet along with the other components. This judgment and award is challenged in the instant First Appeal alongwith delay application.

3. The delay of 922 days is sought to be condoned. The reasons for delay as stated in the application are that the local counsel of the applicant - Corporation did not inform the Corporation about passing of the aforesaid judgment. It is stated that the applicant came to know about the same only after the awarded amount was communicated by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Yavatmal (hereinafter referred to as "SLAO" in short) along with the communications from the Law and Judiciary Department dated 01/09/2016 and 15/03/2017. It is further stated that thereafter, the opinion about preferring an appeal from the higher office of the Corporation was received on 19/08/2017 and after getting approvals at various stages, the true copy of the judgment was forwarded to the present counsel through messenger on 09/10/2017. It is further submitted that there was no budgetary provisions for completing the project and therefore, the requisite amount of Court fees and expenses was sought from the Head Office. That the amount of Court fees was thereafter remitted by cheque dated 11/09/2018 to the present counsel on 08/12/2018 and therefore, the instant appeal came to be filed on 14/12/2018.

17CAF 4325.2019.odt

4. The learned counsel for the applicant urged that the delay was caused mainly on account of procedural requirements for preferring the appeal. The delay is unintentional and was caused due to unavoidable circumstances and thus, he prayed for condoning the delay.

5. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants brought to the notice of this Court, that for the adjacent land, this Court in Civil Application (F) No.3497 of 2019 in First Appeal (St).No.29903 of 2018 (Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation Vs. Ashok Balkrushna Joshi and others), refused to condon delay and the same reached finality as the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed S.L.P. against the said order. The learned counsel urge to reject the application.

6. I have perused the records and considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the rival parties.

7. At the outset, in The State of Maharashtra (through the Special Land Acquisition Officer Irrigation No.1, Nashik) Vs. Kashinath Shivram Tidke, Civil Application Nos. 2109 and 2110 of 1999 In First Appeal (ST.) No. 6868 of 1998 In L. A. R. No. 39 of 1988 and other connected matters, in the similar facts and circumstances as in the present case, the learned Single Judge of this Court, after referring various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court refused to condone the delay of 860 days in

17CAF 4325.2019.odt

preferring the appeal by the State against the Land Acquisition Award of the reference Court for want of explanation for causing inordinate delay of two years for sending the certified copy of the award to the office of the Government Pleader.

8. In the case in hand, as per the applicant's own saying, they got knowledge about the judgment and award dated 14/03/2016 on 15/03/2017 and the present application came to be filed along with the memo of appeal on 14/12/2018. The reasons as given in the application are not acceptable. The V.I.D.C. being a statutory Corporation have its own full-fledged legal department dealing with thousands of Land Acquisition Cases. The land of poor farmer has been compulsorily acquired on the pretext of public purpose for meagre amount of compensation to the owners. The poor farmer had to approach the Court and got the same enhanced in the impugned judgment and award.

9. As per law, once the period of limitation expires, a valuable right accrues in favour of the decree holder.

10. In the instant case, after passing of the judgment and award, the right has already accrued in favour of the respondent, whose land has been compulsorily acquired. In a welfare State like India having robust digital and information technology sector, delay of more than 2½ years in intra- departmental movement of files indicates nothing but the casual and callous approach of the officers concerned, which cannot be taken lightly, at the cost of the right

17CAF 4325.2019.odt

accrued to the landloser. We are conscious of the fact that justice oriented and liberal approach of the Court is required in deciding the delay application.

11. This Court is of the view that in the instant case, the substantial justice would be done by rejecting the application which has been filed after more than 922 days of the passing of the judgment, without any proper explanation for the delay. No public interest is going to be served in pursuing the stale claims against the landloser and that too in the era of the Land Acquisition Act of 2013 (i.e. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.)

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. Subbarayudu & Ors. Vs. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), reported in (2017) 12 SCC 840, in order to do substantial justice, condoned the delay of 3671 days wherein the applicant/appellant was the farmer and it was found that there was sufficient cause for delay, and to bring this farmer at par with the similarly situated farmers who had already received enhanced compensation in the same notification. The facts in the present case are clearly distinguishable from the facts in that case.

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Postmaster General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Limited & Anr., reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563 while declining to condone delay of 427 days in preferring Special Leave Petition has observed thus:

17CAF 4325.2019.odt

"........ In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/year due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government deparments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few...."

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Registrar of Companies Vs. Rajshree Sugar and Chemicals Limited & Ors., reported in (2000) 6 SCC 133 held that though some latitude has to be shown to the Government in deciding the question of delay, that does not give license to the officers of the Government to shirk their responsibility to act with reasonable expedition.

15. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Vithu Kalya Govari & Ors., 2008 (6) Mh.L.J. 239, in somewhat similar facts and circumstances as in the present case, while refusing to condone inordinate delay of more than two years in preferring the appeal against the judgment and award of the reference Court, in concluding paragraph 12 has observed as under:

17CAF 4325.2019.odt

"12. Before these files are consigned to record room, the Courts cannot help but notice that most of the appeals filed on behalf of the State are barred by time and the delay normally is inordinate. They suffer from defect of inordinate delay. Normally, it is expected of the State, in the modern times and with modern amenities and infrastructure, to govern its affairs to the much expected standards. It hardly stands to reason that most of the appeals filed by the State, particularly in land acquisition matters, should be barred by time. They are filed after much delay and normally after considerable delay which remains unexplained and is ex facie unjustified. Filing of appeal within limitation is an exception but filing appeals barred by time is the rule. Filing appeal in a mechanical manner beyond the period of limitation has become a rule. This needs to be checked by the concerned authorities at the earliest. Unreasonable delay on the part of the concerned authority in completion of execution proceedings, disbursement of compensation, determination of compensation and then in filing legal proceedings include the appeals invites twin disadvantages that are opposed to public policy and even good governance. Firstly, even in good cases because of inordinate and unexplained delay, the Court may decline to entertain the appeals. Secondly, the liability of statutory interest increases every passing day which burdens the public exchequer. Both these adverse rigors could be avoided by timely and co-ordinate actions. The authorities are required to have a more practical and pragmatic

17CAF 4325.2019.odt

approach to provide solution to this problem. The inordinate delays occurring from inaction or non-co- operation of the departments, as is demonstrated by the facts of the present cases, needs to be corrected and it will be desirable to fix the responsibility of the erring officer/official. The concept of public accountability for default of performance of statutory and public duties relatable to the powers vested in the authorities under the Act or other administrative authorities, is squarely applicable....."

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by Lrs. Vs. Exe. Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project & Anr., reported in 2008 (6) ALL MR 954 has observed thus:

"23. ...... Pursuing stale claims and multiplicity of proceedings in no manner sub-serves public interest. Prompt and timely payment of compensation to the land losers facilitating their rehabilitation/resettlement is equally an integral part of public policy. Public interest demands that the State or the beneficiary of acquisition, as the case may be, should not be allowed to indulge in any act to unsettle the settled legal rights accrued in law by resorting to avoidable litigation unless the claimants are guilty of deriving benefit which otherwise not entitled in law in any fraudulent manner. One should not forget the basic fact that what is acquired is not the land but the livelihood of the land losers. These public interest parameters ought to be kept in mind by the courts while exercising the discretion

17CAF 4325.2019.odt

dealing with the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Dragging the land losers to courts of law years after the termination of legal proceedings would not serve any public interest. Settled rights cannot be lightly interfered with by condoning inordinate delay without there being any proper explanation of such delay on the ground of involvement of public revenue. It serves no public interest.

24. It is true when the State and its instrumentalities are the applicants seeking condonation of delay they may be entitled to certain amount of latitude but the law of limitation is same for citizen and for Governmental authorities. Limitation Act does not provide for a different period to the government in filing appeals or applications as such..........."

17. It is well settled that "sufficient cause" is required to be shown for condoning the delay. In the instant case, we are not satisfied with the explanation given, that is the local counsel did not communicate passing of the judgment and award in the era of digitization and computer technology. Moreover, this explanation shows that the officers of the applicants - Corporation are negligent in attending the matters before Court and keeping their track".

18. Furthermore, it took more than 1½ year to complete the further procedure. The V.I.D.C. has miserably failed to extend sufficient explanation to condone such a huge delay.

17CAF 4325.2019.odt

19. In the circumstances, the application deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is rejected.

JUDGE Ambulkar