Bombay High Court
The Executive Engineer, Lower ... vs Santosh S/O Bala Darekar (Since ... on 23 August, 2021
Bench: Pushpa V. Ganediwala
caf1605.21.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CIVIL APPLICATION (F) NO. 1605 OF 2021
IN
FIRST APPEAL (FA) ST. NO. 2666 OF 2021.
The Executive Engineer,
Lower Veena Project, Division No.2,
Nagpur. ...APPLICANT.
Versus
Santosh S/o Bala Derkar,
Since deceased, throuh his LRs
1.Smt. Kasubai Wd/o Santoshrao Derkar,
Aged about : 69 years, Occ :Household.
2.Smt. Jijabai w/o Kawdooji Gaurkar,
Aged about : 49 years, Occ :Household.
3.Shri Punjabrao S/o Santoshrao Derkar,
Aged about : 44 years, Occ :Agriculturist.
4.Shri Ajabrao S/o Santoshrao Derkar,
Aged about : 42 years, Occ :Agriculturist.
5. Shri Rajendra S/o Santoshrao Derkar,
Aged about : 34 years, Occ :Agriculturist.
6.Shri Sudhakar S/o Santoshrao Derkar,
Aged about : 36 years, Occ :Agriculturist.
Respondent nos. 1 to 6 R/o Kanhalgaon (Satgaon)
Tahsil and Dist. Nagpur.
7. The State of Maharashtra,
Through : Department Of Irrigation,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
Through its Secretary.
::: Uploaded on - 27/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2021 19:56:00 :::
caf1605.21.odt
2
8. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Pench Project, Office of the Collector,
Nagpur, Civil Line, Dit. Nagpur. ...RESPONDENTS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Tariq Mohammad Zaheer, Advocate for the applicants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.
DATED : 23/08/2021.
ORDER:
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
21/02/1994 for acquiring land of the respondents
situated at Village Kanhalgaon, Tahsil and Dist
Nagpur bearing Survey No. 49/3 (New S.No.76),
ad measuring 0.23 H.R. and 0.75 H.R. land total
1.28 H.R. for construction of Nimn Veena Project.
ii. The Special Land Acquisition Officer
declared the award under Section 11 of the Act on
13/12/1996.
iii. The Special Land Acquisition Officer
awarded compensation of @ of Rs.35,420/- P.H. for
0.23 H.R., @ Rs. 53,235/- P.H. for 0.30 H.R. and @
Rs. 70,980/- for 0.75 H.R. to the claimants for
caf1605.21.odt
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 Ad-hoc
District Judge-2, Nagpur on 22/07/2016, thereby
awarded Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare towards
enhanced compensation. This Judgment and Award
is impugned in this appeal.
3. The delay of 1568 days is sought to be condoned. The
reasons for delay as stated in the application are that the impugned
judgment came to be passed on 22/07/2016 and the appellant
came to the knowledge of the judgment on 07.09.2020 from the
Land Acquisition Officer when the appellant received application
dated 24.09.2020 from the claimants, claiming enhanced
compensation on the basis of judgment dated 22.07.2016. It is
further stated that thereafter the department has sought legal
opinion in the matter on 29.09.2020. It was opined and advised to
file appeal before this Court. Thereafter the matter was handed
over to the counsel, who further demanded Court fees and certified
copy of the judgment and reasons for the delay, which are required
for filing appeal. The appellant applied for the certified copy. The
certified copy of the judgment received on 16.10.2020. Thereafter
the appellant supplied certified copy of the judgment to the panel
counsel in the month of January 2021. It is further submitted that
thereafter the appeal came to be filed on 4.2.2021.
caf1605.21.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. I have perused the record and considered the submission
of the learned counsel for the applicant. At the outset, it took almost
4 years to communicate the judgment by the Land Acquisition
Officer to the Department. 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 farmers has
been compulsorily acquired on the pretext of public purpose for
meagre amount of compensation to the farmers. The poor farmers
had to approach the Court and got the same enhanced in the
impugned judgment and award. As per law, once the period of
limitation expires, a valuable right accrues in favour of the decree
holder. In the instant case, after passing of the judgment and award,
the right has already been accrued in favour of the respondents,
whose land has been compulsorily acquired. In a welfare State like
India having robust digital and information technology sector, it
took almost 4 years to communicate the passing of the judgment to
the Corporation by the LAO which indicate the casual, callous and
lackadaisical approach of the officers concerned at every level,
which cannot be taken lightly, at the cost of the right accrued to the
land loser.
caf1605.21.odt
6. A Division Bench of 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), of which I was one of the members, refused to condone
delay 1009 days for want of sufficient explanation for the delay by
the VIDC.
7. 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 preferring an 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. 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.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Postmaster
General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Limited & Anr., reported in
caf1605.21.odt
(2012) 3 SCC 563 while declining to condone delay of 427 days in
preferring Special Leave Petition has observed thus:
"........ 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...."
10. The Hon'ble Apex 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.
11. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of
caf1605.21.odt
Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Vithu Kalya Govari & Ors., 2008 (6) Mh.L.J.
239, 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:
"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
caf1605.21.odt
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
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....."
12. The Hon'ble Apex 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
caf1605.21.odt
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 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
caf1605.21.odt
government in filing appeals or applications as
such..........."
13. It is well settled that "sufficient cause" is required to be
shown for condoning the delay. In the instant case, I am not
satisfied with the explanation given, i.e. after four years the LAO
communicated about the passing of the judgment, that is too in the
era of digitization and computer technology. Moreover, this
explanation shows that the legal Department of VIDC is negligent in
keeping the track of the matters.
14. I am conscious about the settled position of law that
justice oriented and liberal approach of the Court is required in
deciding the delay application. I am of the view that in the instant
case, the substantial justice would be done by rejecting the
application which has been filed after 1568 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 land loser 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.)
15. In the circumstances, the application deserves to be
dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the
appeal is rejected.
JUDGE
Ambulkar
