Gauhati High Court
Union Of India vs Kailash Kalita And 9 Ors on 20 January, 2021
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010132212017
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2052/2017
UNION OF INDIA.
REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGERCON, N.F. RAILWAY, MALIGAON,
GUWAHATI-781011.
VERSUS
KAILASH KALITA and 9 ORS.
S/O. LT. UMA KALITA, VILL. TEZPUR, MOUZA RAMPUR, DIST.
KAMRUPASSAM. PIN-781132.
2:SRI BRAJEN KALITA
VILL. TEZPUR
MOUZA RAMPUR
DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM. PIN-781132.
3:SRI GAJEN KALITA
VILL. TEZPUR
MOUZA RAMPUR
DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM. PIN-781132.
4:SRI PRADIP KALITA
VILL. TEZPUR
MOUZA RAMPUR
DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM. PIN-781132.
5:SRI RAHIM KALITA
VILL. TEZPUR
MOUZA RAMPUR
DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM. PIN-781132.
6:SRI ARUN KALITA
Page No.# 2/4
S/O. LT. TARACHARAN KALITA
VILL. TEZPUR
MOUZA RAMPUR
DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM. PIN-781132.
7:SRI JALIL KALITA
S/O. LT. TARACHARAN KALITA
VILL. TEZPUR
MOUZA RAMPUR
DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM. PIN-781132.
8:SRI BHOGESWAR KALITA
S/O. LT. TARACHARAN KALITA
VILL. TEZPUR
MOUZA RAMPUR
DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM. PIN-781132.
9:SRI SACHIN KALITA
S/O. LT. TARACHARAN KALITA
VILL. TEZPUR
MOUZA RAMPUR
DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM. PIN-781132.
10:THE COLLECTOR
KAMRUP
GUWAHATI
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.N R RABHA
Advocate for the Respondent :
Linked Case :
THE GENERAL MANAGER CON N.F. RAILWAY
VERSUS
SRI KAILASH KALITA and 9 ORS
Page No.# 3/4
------------
Advocate for : MRS.U CHAKRABORTY
Advocate for : appearing for SRI KAILASH KALITA and 9 ORS
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
ORDER
Date : 20.01.2021
Heard Mr. K. Malakar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Special Senior Counsel
for the applicant. None appears on call for the opposite party nos.1 to 9. However, Mr. G.
Bordoloi, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the proforma respondent no.10 is present.
2. This Interlocutory Application is filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for
condonation of delay of 552 days beyond the period of limitation in filing the connected
appeal. In the connected appeal, common judgment and order dated 08.09.2014 was passed
by the learned District Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon in Misc. Reference Case Nos.17/2014 to
17(XXV)/2014 (New) corresponding to Misc. Reference case nos.59/1999 to 84/1999. The
present appeal relates to judgment and order passed in Misc. Reference Case
No.17(XIV)/2014. The reference cases arise out of award passed in connection with Land
Acquisition Case No.29/1988.
3. At the outset, the learned Govt. Advocate submits that aggrieved by the common
judgment and order passed in the aforesaid 26 reference cases, the applicant herein has filed
26 appeals together with connected interlocutory applications for condonation of delay. It is
submitted that a batch of similar interlocutory applications filed under section 5 of the
Limitation Act, being I.A.(Civil) 2051/2017 (Union of India vs. Sri Jatin Chandra Kalita & 3
Ors.), I.A.(Civil) 2100/2017 (Union of India vs. Basanta Das @ Hira & Anr.), I.A.(Civil)
2049/2017 (Union of India vs. Sri Dharyya Das & 2 Ors.) and I.A.(Civil) 2043/2017 (Union of
India vs. Sri Basanta Das @ Hira & 3 Ors.), had come up for hearing on 17.12.2020 before
this Court. This Court, by common order dated 17.12.2020, elaborately dealt with the causes
explained for the delay and arrived at a conclusion that the applicant railways was negligent
and there was intentional violation of the direction issued in order dated 26.06.2013 in L.A.
Appeal No.1/2012 to 31/2012 and did not appear before the reference Court on the date
Page No.# 4/4
fixed for appearance and consequently, on the ground that negligence was established, the
ground for delay was not considered to be sufficient cause to condone the delay and the said
four interlocutory applications for condonation of delay were dismissed and consequently
connected appeals were also dismissed.
4. Although the learned counsel for the applicant has made his submission to justify
the delay, but it is seen that on facts, the present interlocutory application stands in the same
footing with similar ground assigned for condonation of delay as mentioned from the order
dated 17.12.2020 in the hereinbefore four interlocutory applications. Accordingly, this Court is
not inclined to take a view different from the one expressed by the coordinate Bench of this
Court in the common order dated 17.12.2020 passed in I.A.(Civil) 2051/2017, I.A.(Civil)
2100/2017, I.A.(Civil) 2049/2017 and I.A.(Civil) 2043/2017. Hence, as the explanation for the
delay does not disclose sufficient reasons, by following order dated 17.12.2020 passed in I.A.
(Civil) 2051/2017 and 3 connected cases, the present interlocutory application also stand
dismissed.
5. Resultantly, the connected unregistered L.A. Appeal under filing Sl.
No.277910/2016 dated 24.06.2016 stands dismissed.
6. A copy of the hereinbefore referred common order dated 17.12.2020 in I.A.(Civil)
2051/2017, I.A.(Civil) 2100/2017, I.A.(Civil) 2049/2017 and I.A.(Civil) 2043/2017 is retained
as a part of record.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
