Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Asansol Durgapur Development ... vs Malay Mukherjee & Ors on 10 February, 2021
10.02.2021 FAT 13 of 2016
Court No. 02
with
Item No. DL - 58 CAN 1 of 2016
nandy
(CAN 3445 of 2016)
(Delay Condoned)
with
CAN 2 of 2016
(CAN 5422 of 2016)
Asansol Durgapur Development Authority
Vs.
Malay Mukherjee & Ors.
Mr. Raja Basu Chowdhury, Advocate
Mr. Sayantan Bose, Advocate
Ms. Anyapurba Banerjee, Advocate
......for the Appellants
Mr. Sardar Amjad Ali, Senior Advocate
Mr. Masum Ali Sardar, Advocate
......for the Respondents
CAN 1 of 2016 (CAN 3445 of 2016)
This is an application for condonation of delay in filing
the instant appeal beyond the period of limitation provided
therefor. Admittedly, the Land Acquisition Court upon a
reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act
passed a judgment, which is sought to be challenged in the
instant appeal after an enormous delay.
It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellant
that the reasons for such delay has been explained in the said
application and it would appear therefrom that the same was
beyond the control of the appellant though they were all along
diligent in proceeding with the case. On the other hand, Mr.
Ali, learned senior Advocate, appearing for the respondents,
submits that the delay being enormous and in absence of
proper explanation, the Court should not condone the delay.
He further submits that even after emerging successfully
before the Land Acquisition Court, the unfortunate owners of
the land who lost their title thereto, have not received just and
proper compensation.
It is no doubt true that there has been a considerable
delay in filing the instant appeal by the appellant. Equally we
cannot overlook the fact that the length of delay is not the sole
factor but what weighs to the Court is that there is sufficient
cause shown for the delay. The delay of longer period can be
condoned by the Court if it is satisfied that sufficient cause
has been shown whereas delay of shorter period may not be
condoned in absence thereof. The Court should not adopt
hyper-technical approach to an application for condonation of
delay. The approach of the Court should be liberal as the
meritorious matter should not be nipped on the anvil of law of
limitation. It is more desirable that the litigation is decided on
merit than on technical ground keeping the rights of the
parties in lurch and grappling in the corridors of the Court,
sometimes in the docket thereof. While allowing an
application for condonation of delay, the Court may
compensate the adversary by imposing costs.
Though we find that the explanation is somewhat
satisfactory yet it cannot be said to be completely immuned
from any carelessness or negligence attributed to the
appellants but in our opinion, the compensation to the
respondents would be a proper approach to be adopted by
the Court.
Accordingly the application for condonation of delay
being CAN 1 of 2016 (CAN 3445 of 2016) is allowed subject
to payment of cost assessed at Rs.1 lakh (Rupees One Lakh
only).
The appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty thousand only) out of the said cost by an
account payee cheque in the name of the substituted
respondent no. 1 through Mr. Masum Ali Sardar, learned
Advocate-on-record of the respondents within two weeks from
date.
The remaining amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
thousand only) shall be deposited within the time indicated
herein with the State Legal Service Authority who shall keep
the said amount in an account earmarked for juvenile.
In default of payment of costs as indicated above, this
order shall stand automatically recalled and the application for
condonation of delay shall be deemed to have been
dismissed.
After deposit of the cost, liberty is granted to the
appellants to pray for listing of the application pending in the
instant appeal upon notice to the learned Advocate-on-record
of the respondent no. 1.
(Harish Tandon, J.)
(Kausik Chanda, J.)
