Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/28 vs The State Of Assam And 29 Ors on 14 May, 2025
Page No.# 1/28
GAHC010061842025
2025:GAU-AS:6166
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Case : I.A.(Civil)/3029/2024
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD
NERTS
REGIONAL HEAD QUARTERS
DONGTIEH
LOWER NONGRAH
LAPALANG
SHILLONG 793006
MEGHALAYA.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANGER DR.KAUSTAV JYOTI KALITA.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 29 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
ASSAM
POWER DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI 6
2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BISWANATH
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
BISWANATH REVENUE CIRCLE
BISWANATH CHARIALI
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/28
4:SHRI. DURLLAV DUNGRI
SON OF LAKHAN DUNGRI
VILLAGE BAGHMARI
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
5:SHRI. JAGANNATH UPADHYAYA
SON OF SRI KEDAR UPADHYAYA
VILLAGE BALIPUKHURI
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
6:SHRI. PRASHANTA HAZARIKA
SON OF LATE KRISHNA HAZARIKA
VILLAGE BAGHMARI
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
7:SHRI. KARUNA BORUAH
SON OF SRI ROHINI BORUAH
VILLAGE NABAPUR
P.O. AND P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
Page No.# 3/28
8:SHRI. TAPAN BARUAH
SON OF LATE LAKHIDHAR BARUAH
VILLAGE SAMARIKHOWA
P.O. AND P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
9:SHRI. BHUPEN KUMAR BORAH
SON OF LATE SARAT BORAH
VILLAGE KOCHGAON
P.O. AND P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
10:SHRI. KHARGESWAR GAYAN
SON OF LATE BAPURAM GAYAN
VILLAGE BALIPUKHURI
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
11:SHRI. MUKUL BORUAH
SON OF LATE JOYGORAM BORUAH
VILLAGE MAZBAGHMARA
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
12:SHRI. DADUL RAJKHOWA
SON OF LATE NABIN RAJKHOWA
VILLAGE MAZBAGHMARA
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
Page No.# 4/28
ASSAM
PIN 784176
13:SHRI. MUKUL BORAH
SON OF BHOLOK BORAH
VILLAGE UPARBAGMARA
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
14:SHRI. LILA SARMAH
SON OF LATE KUL PRASAD SARMAH
VILLAGE BALIPUKHURI
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
15:LATE CHITTARANJAN SAIKIA
SON OF LATE THANURAM SAIKIA
REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL WIFE SMT. IJANI SAIKIA
VILLAGE NIZBAGHMARI
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
16:LATE JOYRAM BORAH
SON OF LATE BAPUKAN BORAH
Page No.# 5/28
REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL WIFE SMT. MINU BORAH
VILLAGE BALIPUKHURI
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
17:SHRI. HEMANTA BORAH
SON OF LATE BALI BORAH
VILLAGE JORABARI
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
18:SHRI. HARESHWAR THAKURIA
SON OF LATE BHELUTHAKURIA
VILLAGE AND P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
19:SHRI. RAJENDRA PRASAD DAS
SON OF LATE GOLOK DAS
VILLAGE DAWGAON
P.O.
BISWANATH CHARIALI
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
Page No.# 6/28
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
20:SHRI. KARUN BORAH
SON OF LATE TARUN BORAH
VILLAGE JORABARI
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
21:LATE PRANJAL BHUYAN
SON OF LATE PONARAMBHUYAN
REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL WIFE SMT. BINI BHUYAN
VILLAGE MAZBAGHMARA
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
22:SHRI. BIREN HAZARIKA
SON OF LATE CHANPAK HAZARIKA
VILLAGE BAMGAON
P.O.
BISWANATH CHARIALI
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
Page No.# 7/28
PIN 784176
23:SHRI. NIRON GOGOI
SON OF LATE HOCHOLAGOGOI
VILLAGE BISWANATHIA PAM
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
24:LATE DHARMESWAR KATAKI
S/O LATE KAMAL KATAKI
REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL WIFE SMT. IMONI KATAKI
VILLAGE BALIPUKHURI
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
25:SHRI. ANIL KUMAR BORKATAKI
SON OF LATE PURNA CH. BORKATAKI
VILLAGE MARALGOAN
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
26:SHRI. AJIT BORAH
SON OF LATE JOYGESWAR BORAH
Page No.# 8/28
VILLAGE MARALGOAN
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
27:SHRI. KISHNAKANTA DAS
SON OF LATE JAMINI DAS
VILLAGE MARALGOAN
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
28:SHRI. CHITTARANJAN BORAH
SON OF DHARMAKANTA BORAH
VILLAGE SAMARIKHOWA
P.O. AND P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
29:SHRI. JOGEN BHUYAN
SON OF LATE SONESWARBHUYAN
VILLAGE KOBAIGAON
P.O. AND P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
Page No.# 9/28
30:MISS BEENA HAZARIKA
SON OF LATE GIRISH CHANDRA HAZARIKA
VILLAGE LEHUGAON
P.O.
LEHUGAON
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
------------
Advocate for : MR. D DEKA
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 29 ORS
&
I.A.(Civil)/1022/2025
DURLLAV DUNGRI AND 27 ORS.
SON OF LAKHAN DUNGRI, VILL- BAGHMARI, P.O.- BURIGANG, P.S.-
BISWANTH CHARIALI, DIST- BISWANATH, ASSAM, PIN-784176
2: SHRI. JAGANNATH UPADHYAYA
SON OF SRI KEDAR UPADHYAYA
VILLAGE BALIPUKHURI
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
3: SHRI. PRASHANTA HAZARIKA
SON OF LATE KRISHNA HAZARIKA
VILLAGE BAGHMARI
P.O.
BURIGANG
Page No.# 10/28
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
4: SHRI. KARUNA BORUAH
SON OF SRI ROHINI BORUAH
VILLAGE NABAPUR
P.O. AND P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
5: SHRI. TAPAN BARUAH
SON OF LATE LAKHIDHAR BARUAH
VILLAGE SAMARIKHOWA
P.O. AND P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
6: SHRI. BHUPEN KUMAR BORAH
SON OF LATE SARAT BORAH
VILLAGE KOCHGAON
P.O. AND P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
7: SHRI. KHARGESWAR GAYAN
SON OF LATE BAPURAM GAYAN
VILLAGE BALIPUKHURI
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
8: SHRI. MUKUL BORUAH
SON OF LATE JOYGORAM BORUAH
Page No.# 11/28
VILLAGE MAZBAGHMARA
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
9: SHRI. DADUL RAJKHOWA
SON OF LATE NABIN RAJKHOWA
VILLAGE MAZBAGHMARA
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
10: SHRI. MUKUL BORAH
SON OF BHOLOK BORAH
VILLAGE UPARBAGMARA
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
11: SHRI. LILA SARMAH
SON OF LATE KUL PRASAD SARMAH
VILLAGE BALIPUKHURI
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
12: CHITTARANJAN SAIKIA
Page No.# 12/28
SON OF LATE THANURAM SAIKIA
REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL WIFE SMT. IJANI SAIKIA
VILLAGE NIZBAGHMARI
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
13: LATE JOYRAM BORAH
SON OF LATE BAPUKAN BORAH
REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL WIFE SMT. MINU BORAH
VILLAGE BALIPUKHURI
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
14: SHRI. HEMANTA BORAH
SON OF LATE BALI BORAH
VILLAGE JORABARI
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
15: SHRI. HARESHWAR THAKURIA
SON OF LATE BHELUTHAKURIA
VILLAGE AND P.O.
BURIGANG
Page No.# 13/28
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
16: SHRI. RAJENDRA PRASAD DAS
SON OF LATE GOLOK DAS
VILLAGE DAWGAON
P.O.
BISWANATH CHARIALI
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
17: SHRI. KARUN BORAH
SON OF LATE TARUN BORAH
VILLAGE JORABARI
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
18: LATE PRANJAL BHUYAN
SON OF LATE PONARAMBHUYAN
REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL WIFE SMT. BINI BHUYAN
VILLAGE MAZBAGHMARA
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
Page No.# 14/28
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
19: SHRI. BIREN HAZARIKA
SON OF LATE CHANPAK HAZARIKA
VILLAGE BAMGAON
P.O.
BISWANATH CHARIALI
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
20: SHRI. NIRON GOGOI
SON OF LATE HOCHOLAGOGOI
VILLAGE BISWANATHIA PAM
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
21: LATE DHARMESWAR KATAKI
S/O LATE KAMAL KATAKI
REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL WIFE SMT. IMONI KATAKI
VILLAGE BALIPUKHURI
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
Page No.# 15/28
22: SHRI. ANIL KUMAR BORKATAKI
SON OF LATE PURNA CH. BORKATAKI
VILLAGE MARALGOAN
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
23: SHRI. AJIT BORAH
SON OF LATE JOYGESWAR BORAH
VILLAGE MARALGOAN
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
24: SHRI. KISHNAKANTA DAS
SON OF LATE JAMINI DAS
VILLAGE MARALGOAN
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
25: SHRI. CHITTARANJAN BORAH
SON OF DHARMAKANTA BORAH
VILLAGE SAMARIKHOWA
P.O. AND P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
Page No.# 16/28
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
26: SHRI. JOGEN BHUYAN
SON OF LATE SONESWARBHUYAN
VILLAGE KOBAIGAON
P.O. AND P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
27: MISS BEENA HAZARIKA
SON OF LATE GIRISH CHANDRA HAZARIKA
VILLAGE LEHUGAON
P.O.
LEHUGAON
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 78417
VERSUS
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD AND 3 ORS.
NERTS, REGIONAL HEAD QUARTERS, DONGTEIH, LOWER NONGRAH,
LAPALANG, SHILLONG, (MEGHALAYA), PIN- 793006, REPRESENTED BY
ITS CHIEF MANAGER DR. KAUSTAV JYOTI KALITA
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM
POWER DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI
PIN-781006
3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
Page No.# 17/28
BISWANATH
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
BISWANATH REVENUE CIRCLE
BISWANATH CHARIALI
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D C K HAZARIKA, MS J BEZBARUAH,MR N C K
HAZARIKA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PGCI LTD., GA, ASSAM
In
L.A.App./ Case No. 10838/2024
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
ORDER
14.05.2025
1. Heard Mr. C.P. Sharma, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by
Mr. S. Dev, the learned counsel for the applicant in the Interlocutory
Application No. 3029/2024. Also heard Ms. D.D. Barman, the learned
Additional Senior Government Advocate for the opposite parties No. 2 and
3. Also heard Mr. D.C.K. Hazarika, learned counsel for opposite parties No.
4 to 30 and the applicants in the Interlocutory Application No. 1022/2025.
2. The Interlocutory Application No. 3029/2024 has been filed by
the applicant, namely, Power Grid Corporation of India Limited under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 63 days
in filing the connected appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition
Page No.# 18/28
Act, 1894, against the Judgment and Order dated 04.03.2024, which was
subsequently corrected on 06.04.2024, passed by the Court of the learned
Additional District Judge, Biswanath, Biswanath Chariali in Misc.(Land
Acquisition) Case No. 01/2019.
3. The applicant has also sought for leave of this Court to admit the
appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
4. The Interlocutory Application (C) No. 1022/2025 has been filed
by the opposite parties No. 4 to 30, in whose favour the impugned award
dated 04.03.2024 (subsequently corrected on 06.04.2024), was passed in
Misc. (Land Acquisition) Case No. 01/2019.The said Interlocutory
Application is actually a consolidated objection filed by the opposite
parties in I.A.(C) No. 3029/2024 and wherein, apart from objecting to the
prayer for condoning the delay in preferring the connected appeal by the
applicant of I.A.(C) No.3029/2024, the question of maintainability of the
connected LA Appeal has also been raised.
5. Mr. C.P. Sarma, the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant in
I.A.(C) No. 3029/2024 has submitted that the Power Grid Corporation of
India Limited has preferred the connected LA Appeal, impugning the
Judgment and Order dated 04.03.2024, (which was subsequently
corrected on 06.04.2024) passed in Misc.(Land Acquisition) Case No.
01/2019 by the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Biswanath,
Biswanath Chariali, whereby the applicant was directed to pay an
enhanced compensation to the opposite parties No. 4 to 30, without
giving any opportunity to the applicant to participate in the said
proceedings.
Page No.# 19/28
6. The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has submitted that,
though the impugned Judgment and Order was delivered on 04.03.2024,
however, later on, it was again corrected on 06.04.2024, and therefore, on
computing the period of limitation from the date of the subsequent order,
it was found that 63 days delay has occurred in preferring the connected
LA Appeal by the applicant.
7. The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has submitted that,
though in the Misc. (Land Acquisition) Case No. 01/2019, the Additional
Deputy Collector (Revenue),Biswanath, Biswanath Chariali, had filed an
application for impleading the present applicant, the Power Grid
Corporation of India Limited, as a necessary party to the proceeding on
16thFebruary 2023. However, without passing any order on that
impleadment application, the LA Case No.1/2019 was disposed of on
04.03.2024, and later on, the said order was rectified on 06.04.2024.
8. The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has also submitted
that, though the name of the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited has
been shown as an opposite party in the cause title of the Misc. (Land
Acquisition) Case No. 01/2019, however, the impleadment application filed
by the Additional Deputy Collector (Revenue), Biswanath, Biswanath
Chariali, was never disposed of, and the applicant was never afforded any
opportunity to participate in the said proceedings.
9. The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has submitted that
the applicant came to know about the impugned Judgment and Order, for
the first time, only when it received a communication from the engaged
counsel for the opposite party, Mr. D. C. K. Hazarika on 13.05.2024.
Page No.# 20/28
10. Thereafter, after applying the certified copy and in taking required
steps for preferring the connected LA Appeal, 63 days of delay was
caused, which has been explained in paragraph No. 4 of the application
for the condonation of delay.
11. The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has also submitted
that though, the leave to file an appeal under Section 54 is not mandatory,
however, as the present applicant was not impleaded as a party in Misc.
(Land Acquisition) Case No. 01/2019, the applicant has sought for leave to
file the connected appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 in the I.A.(C) No. 3029/2024 itself.
12. The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has submitted that
as the applicant' corporation is the Requisitioning Authority and would be
liable to pay compensation for acquisition of the land in question as per
the impugned judgment and award, and as it was deprived of the
opportunity participating in the proceedings of Misc. (Land Acquisition)
Case No. 01/2019 in spite of the fact that a petition for impleadment of
the present applicant was filed by the Additional Deputy Collector
(Revenue), Biswanath, Biswanath Chariali, hence, the ends of justice
would be served only if it is allowed to pursue the connected L.A. Appeal
and for that the delay of 63 days in filing the connected appeal is required
to be condoned.
13. The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has also submitted
that the delay caused in filing the connected appeal was not due to lack of
any bonafide on the part of the applicant and as the applicant is a
corporation, some unintentional delay has been caused due to
Page No.# 21/28
administrative procedures in taking decision regarding filing of the
connected LA Appeal.
14. He also submits that though the opposite parties have filed the
writ petition i.e., W.P. (C) No. 856/2019 making the present applicant as
the opposite party No. 5 in the said petition. However, the said writ
petition was disposed of at the motion stage on 08.02.0219 without
issuing notice to the present applicant. He also submits that in the said
writ petition, only the presence of Government Advocate has been
reflected in the order dated 08.02.0219 by which the said writ petition was
disposed of which indicates that the applicant's corporation was not
represented and was not aware of the filing of the writ petition by the
opposite parties.
15. He submits that as the applicant was not impleaded in the Misc.
(Land Acquisition) Case No. 01/2019 and as during the pendency of the
impleadment petition itself, the Misc. (Land Acquisition) Case No. 01/2019
was disposed of, by order dated 04.03.2024, the applicant was unaware
about the said order till it received a communication on 13.05.2024 from
the engaged counsel for the opposite parties. He, therefore, prays for
condoning the delay of 63 days in filing of the connected LA Appeal.
16. On the other hand, Mr. D. C. Kath Hazarika, the learned counsel
for the opposite party Nos. 4 to 30 has vehemently objected to the prayer
for condoning the delay in filing the connected LA Appeal filed by the
present applicant mainly on 6(six) grounds.
17. The first contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties
Page No.# 22/28
in opposing the instant application is that no separate application under
Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,has been filed for seeking
leave to appeal by the present applicant and in view of that matter, the
prayer for delay condonation may be rejected.
18. The second contention of the learned counsel for the opposite
parties is that the actual delay in preferring the appeal is of 99 days and
not 63 days and the said 99 days have not been explained sufficiently by
the applicant.
19. The third contention of the learned counsel for the opposite
parties is that in the connected LA Appeal, the applicant has not filed the
ad valorem court fee which is required to be filed under Section 8 of the
Court Fees Act, 1870 and therefore, the said appeal may not be admitted.
20. The Fourth contention of the learned counsel for the opposite
parties is that in the reference proceeding, i.e., Misc. (Land Acquisition)
Case No. 01/2019, the applicant have failed to adduce any rebuttal
evidence in spite of the fact that the counsel for the applicant had
appeared in the said proceeding.
21. The Fifth ground for opposing the application for condoning the
delay is that the applicant has not filed a separate stay petition under
Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the connected LA
Appeal.
22. The Sixth ground taken by the learned counsel for the opposite
parties is that the connected appeal has been filed by the applicant
without following the procedure prescribed by the law only with a view to
Page No.# 23/28
prevent the opposite parties to enjoy the fruits of the decree passed in
Misc. (Land Acquisition) Case No. 01/2019. He has also submitted that in
the meanwhile, the opposite parties have already filed an LA Execution
Application before the Executing Court and on the basis of which Misc.
(Land Acquisition) Case No. 01/2019 has been registered and notices were
issued to the judgment debtor.
23. He has submitted that the present application has been filed by
the applicant merely to prevent the opposite patties to enjoy the benefit of
the enhanced compensation awarded to them, by the order dated
04.03.2024 (which was subsequently corrected on 06.04.2024) in Misc.
(Land Acquisition) Case No. 01/2019 and therefore, he has prayed for
dismissing the Interlocutory Application No. 3029/2024 by rejecting the
prayer to condone the delay in filing the connected appeal.
24. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel
for both the sides and have perused the materials available on record.
25. The Interlocutory Application (Civil) No. 3029/2024 has been filed
by the applicant, Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, under Section 5
of the Limitation Act, 1963 mainly for condonation of delay of 63 days in
filing the connected appeal. Till date, the connected appeal has not yet
been registered. Hence, some of the contentions raised by the opposite
parties in their composite objection filed in the form of an interlocutory
application, i.e., I.A.(C) No. 1022/2025 do not appear to be relevant at
this stage.
26. We will take up each contention one by one. As regards the fact
Page No.# 24/28
that the applicant was not able to participate in the proceeding of Misc.
(Land Acquisition) Case No. 01/2019, it appears from the record that the
application for impleading the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited as a
necessary party in the Misc. (Land Acquisition) Case No. 01/2019, was
filed on 16th February, 2023 to which the opposite parties had filed a
consolidated objection on 03.06.2023.
27. It appears from the record that the impleadment petition was
numbered as petition No. 265/2023 on 16.02.2023 and the next date was
fixed on 03.05.2023 in the Misc. (Land Acquisition) Case No. 01/2019. It
also appears that on 03.05.2023, the petition No. 265/2023 was fixed for
hearing on 03.06.2023. Thereafter, on 03.06.2023, consolidated objection
was filed by the opposite parties and the next date was fixed on
28.06.2023. Thereafter, the case was fixed for hearing on the said petition
on 31.08.2023 and 11.12.2023. Thereafter, on 11.12.2023, the case was
transferred to the Court of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge
(FTC), Biswanath for disposal and on the said date also, no hearing took
place and the next date was fixed on 04.01.2024. On 04.01.2024, the
matter was heard and the next date was fixed on 03.04.2024. On the said
date also, the said case was fixed for orders on 04.03.2024 and ultimately
on 04.03.2024, the Misc. (Land Acquisition) Case No. 01/2019 was
disposed of.
28. Thus, from the materials available on record, it appears that there
is nothing on record to suggest that the impleadment petition No.
265/2023 was considered and allowed and therefore, the plea taken by
the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant that the applicant came to
Page No.# 25/28
know about the impugned judgment and award only on 13.05.2024, when
it received a communication from the engaged counsel for the opposite
parties, is believable.
29. As regards the date of computation of the period of limitation is
concerned, it is apparent from the record that the final judgment and
award in Misc. (Land Acquisition) Case No. 01/2019 was initially passed on
14.03.2024. However, later on, some rectification was made in the said
order and the rectified order was passed again on 06.04.2024. As such the
judgment and award passed in Misc. (Land Acquisition) Case No. 01/2019
got its finality only on 06.04.2024, therefore, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the period of limitation shall have to be computed
from the said date only.
30. After taking into consideration the said date, i.e. 06.04.2024 as
period from which the limitation of 90 days would be calculated, it appears
that there has been a delay of only 63 days in preferring the connected LA
Appeal. The said delay has been explained by the applicant in paragraph
No. 4 of the application for condonation of delay.
31. This Court is of the considered opinion that the delay of 63 days,
which is stated to have been caused due to time taken to complete
administrative procedures before filing of the connected LA Appeal by a
corporation appears to be unintentional delay and it was not due to lack of
any bonafide on the part of the applicant. As the applicant is a
corporation, it cannot be treated as any other private litigant and some
consideration may have to be given for the time taken required for taking
institutional decisions in such corporation, if same is properly explained.
Page No.# 26/28
32. This Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant has
sufficiently explained the cause for which the delay of 63 days has been
caused in preferring the connected LA Appeal.
33. As it is the applicant, who would be liable to pay the enhanced
compensation in the event the impugned judgment remains unchallenged,
a liberal and justice oriented approach is required to be adopted in
exercise of powers under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 while
considering the prayer for condonation of delay of 63 days in the instant
case. This Court, therefore, is inclined to condone the delay of 63 days
caused by the applicant in preferring the connected appeal.
34. As regards the requirement of a separate application by the
applicant for seeking leave to file the connected appeal under Section 54
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is concerned, though as per the Gauhati
High Court Rules, the said requirement is there, however, this Court is not
barred to take into consideration the said prayer, even if the same is
mentioned in the condonation of delay application provided separate Court
Fees paid for the same.
35. As the applicant would be liable to pay the enhanced
compensation which was directed to be paid by the impugned judgment
and as the applicant was not impleaded as a party in the proceeding of
Misc. (Land Acquisition) Case No. 01/2019, in spite of an impleadment
application pending before the reference court, the ends of justice
requires that the right of the applicant to file appeal under Section 54 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 may not be foreclosed merely for the
reason that no separate application seeking leave under Section 54 of the
Page No.# 27/28
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was filed by the applicant, therefore, the leave
to file the connected LA Appeal is granted to the applicant.
36. As regards not filing of a separate stay petition under Order 41
Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 along with, the connected LA
Appeal by the applicant is concerned, the said question is premature at
this stage as the connected LA Appeal is yet to be registered.
37. Finally, the objection regarding the non-payment of the ad
valorem court fee is concerned, the Apex Court in the case of "Indore
Development Authority Vs. Tarak Singh And Others" reported in
"1995 Supp (3) SCC 25" has observed that when the appellant seeks to
avoid the decree, which is made by the reference court, it must be
construed that the appellant is seeking to avoid the amount of higher
compensation determined by the reference court, as claimed by the
landowners. Therefore, the appellant is required to pay the court fee on
the memorandum of appeal of the extent on which the appellant seeks to
avoid the higher compensation awarded by the reference court under the
Central Act. It also observed that when the legality of the award is
challenged by filing an appeal under Section 54, the difference of the
amount for which appeal is filed, the ad valorem court fee under Section 8
is required to be paid.
38. In view of the above, the applicant is required to pay the ad
valorem court fee on the memorandum of appeal to the extent, on which
the applicant is seeking to avoid higher compensation awarded by the
reference court.
Page No.# 28/28
39. For the reasons discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, the delay
of 63 days in preferring the connected LA Appeal by the applicant is
hereby condoned.
40. The Registry is directed to register the connected LA Appeal on
filing of the ad valorem court fee by the applicant as indicated
hereinabove, and thereafter list the same in the next week for admission
hearing.
41. The Interlocutory Application (Civil) No. 3029/2024 and
Interlocutory Application (Civil) No. 1022/2025 are accordingly disposed
of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
