Union Of India And Others vs Lok Nath And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 1177 j&K

                                                                   Sr. No.23

             HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                           AT JAMMU

                                               CONC No.52/2018


Union of India and Others

                                                   ...Applicant(s)/Appellant(s)


                  Through :- Mr. Sandeep Gupta, CGSC.
v/s
                  <




Lok Nath and Another                                         .....Respondent (s)

                  Through :- None.


Coram:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE

                                   JUDGMENT

24.09.2021

1. This is an application seeking to condone the delay of 708 day in filing

the accompanied Civil First Appeal against the order 31.10.2015 passed by the

Reference Court (learned Principal District Judge, Rajouri) whereby the amount

of compensation for the land acquired has been enhanced.

2. Before adjudicating the instant condonation of delay application, I

deem it appropriate to highlight the brief facts of the case as well as to peruse the

order passed by the Reference Court hereunder:

3. The applicant-appellant herein vide letter No.17.07.2004 placed an

indent for acquisition of the aforesaid land for the purpose of construction of

Army Goodwill School at Village Dhanore Loharan, Tehsil and District Rajouri

and accordingly the Collector Land Acquisition Defence, Rajouri vide

notification bearing No.Coll/Def/336-42 dated 19.07.2004 issued a notice under

Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act calling upon objections from the

interested persons relating to the acquisition of the land. The case of acquisition

was recommended to the Financial Commissioner Revenue, Jammu and Kashmir

by the Collector Land Acquisition Defence, Rajouri vide communication dated

19.08.2004 for obtaining declaration under Section 6 and under Section 7 of the

Act. The Jammu and Kashmir Revenue Department vide No.78-RD of 2005

declared the land in question under Section 6 to be needed for public purpose

and conveyed the same to the Collector Defence Rajouri with a directive to take

orders for acquisition for the land bearing Khasra Nos. 189 and 190 measuring 4

Kanals 13 Marlas situated at Village Dhanore Loharan, Tehsil and District

Rajouri, under Section 7 of the Act and subsequently, notification under Section

9 and 9-A of the Act was issued by the Collector Land Acquisition Defence,

Rajouri dated 30.07.2005 calling upon the interested persons to file objections in

respect of the amount of compensation. Since no objection was filed by the

interested persons, the prescribed rate of Rs.1,03,000/- per Kanal was adopted by

the Collector. However the said rate was not based on the documentary evidence,

as such, the rate proposed in the draft award was not found tenable by the

competent authority i.e., the Financial Commissioner Revenue, Jammu and

Kashmir who accorded the formal approval of rate of compensation @ 80,000/-

per Kanal plus 15 per cent Jabrana thus the rate of compensation was fixed and

award has been issued vide notification dated 06.06.2006. However, the owners

of the land had received the awarded amount under protest and also made a

Reference under Section 18 of the Act on 27.09.2006 on the ground that land in

question is not less than ten lakhs per Kanal at the relevant time and the said

Reference was forwarded to learned Principal District Judge, Rajouri to

adjudicate.

4. The Reference Court while considering the case in hand has examined

the petitioner, namely, Lok Nath who is owner of land bearing Khasra No.189

and 190 situated at Village Dhanore Loharan, Tehsil and District Rajouri

measuring 4 Kanals 13 Marlas acquired by the Army. Along with petitioner, the

Reference Court has examined Krishan Lal, Raman Kumar, Tilak Raj and

Mukhtiar Ahmed Patwari.

The witness Krishan Lal deposed that his land is adjacent to the land

owned by Lok Nath-respondent No.1 herein, measuring 7 marlas and 2 Sarsai

had been purchased through a sale deed in the year 2004 at the consideration of

Rs.1,35,000/-. He further deposed that when the land of the petitioner was

acquired at that time the rate of the land was 4 to 5 lakh per Kanal and the

applicant herein has given very less compensation. Similar, statements were

made by the other respondents.

5. After considering the statements of witnesses of both the sides, the

Reference Court came to conclusion that the claimants shall be entitled to

compensation of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.2.50 lakh per Kanal along

with Jabrana @ 15 per cent on enhanced amount and interest @ 6 per cent per

annum from the date on which the possession of land shall be taken from the

respondents herein till payment of the enhanced amount is made.

6. I have heard Mr. Sandeep Singh, learned CGSC for the applicant-

Union of India and perused the record.

7. Admittedly, the applicant was made party before the Reference Court

at the request of appellant himself and as such, the Union of India had contested

the matter by engaging a counsel namely, Mukhtair Mirza who has contested the

same and the learned Reference Court has passed the impugned order dated

31.10.2015 on the basis of evidence led by the parties before it.

8. The applicant herein cannot take a plea that the counsel has not

informed and brought into notice of the Union of India about passing of the order

by the Reference Court in due time. If this is an attitude of the Government then

what is to be expected from a common man. The Government has huge

manpower as well as efficient machinery at its disposal to supervise and pursue

its matters, but the applicant has perceived delay as a non serious matter and its

lackadaisical tendency is exhibited by its nonchalant manner in which the

applicant had pursued the matter. The carelessness on the part of the applicant in

this case is embarrassingly unfathomable.

9. With regard to limitation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the

law is well settled by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary

No(s).19846/2020 titled as Union of India Vs. Central Tibetan Schools Admin

&Ors., decided on 04.02.2021 wherein while dismissing the same on account of

delay observed as under:-

"We have repeatedly being counselling through our orders various Government departments, State Governments and other public authorities that they must learn to file appeals in time and set their house in order so far as the legal department is concerned, more so as technology assists them. This appears to be falling on deaf ears despite costs having been imposed in number of matters with the direction to recover it from the officers responsible for the delay as we are of the view that these officers must be made

accountable. It has not had any salutary effect and that the present matter should have been brought up, really takes the cake!

The aforesaid itself shows the casual manner in which the petitioner has approached this Court without any cogent or plausible ground for condonation of delay. In fact, other than the lethargy and incompetence of the petitioner, there is nothing which has been put on record. We have repeatedly discouraged State Governments and public authorities in adopting an approach that they can walk in to the Supreme Court as and when they please ignoring the period of limitation prescribed by the Statutes, as if the Limitation statute does not apply to them. In this behalf, suffice to refer to our judgment in the State of Madhya Pradesh &Ors. v. Bheru Lal [SLP [C] Diary No.9217/2020 decided on 15.10.2020] and The State of Odisha &Ors. v. Sunanda Mahakuda [SLP [C] Diary No. 22605/2020 decided on 11.01.2021].........................".

10. In the present case, the award was passed on 31.10.2015, however, the

applicant remained silent till 2018 without enquiring and having the status of

Reference from the counsel. The application, even otherwise is without detail

reasons and the same has been drafted in a very casual and routine manner.

Beside the plausible grounds of delay are conspicuous by their absence in this

application.

11. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the application seeking condonation

of delay at hand lacks in merit and is, accordingly, dismissed along with

connected CM(s). Consequently, the appeal attached with this application is also

dismissed.

(Tashi Rabstan) Judge Jammu:

            24.09.2021
            Surinder



                                     Whether the order is speaking?          Yes/No
                                     Whether the order is reportable?        Yes/No




SURINDER KUMAR
2021.09.28 16:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document