Jharkhand High Court
Bandhan Oraon vs Union Of India on 23 January, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
First Appeal No. 486 of 2018
with
I.A. No. 7146 of 2019
with
I.A. No. 4038 of 2021
with
I.A. No. 4039 of 2021
1. Bandhan Oraon
2. Tuntun Oraon
3. Most. Somari Devi
4. Jethu Oraon ... ... Appellants
Versus
1. Union of India
2. The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Mitul Kumar, Advocate
For the Resp.- U.O.I : Mr. Anil Kumar, Addl. S.G.I.
: Ms. Chanda Kumari, JC to ASGI
For the State : Mr. Praveen Akhauri, SC (Mines)-I
: Mr. Diva Kant Raj, AC to SC (Mines)-I
---
07/23.01.2025 I.A. No. 7146 of 2019
1. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that I.A. No. 7146
of 2019 has been filed seeking exemption from filing certified copy of
the award. However, he submits that the certified copy has been filed
in this record itself and therefore, he does not want to press the
interlocutory application.
2. Considering the submissions, I.A. No. 7146 of 2019 is
dismissed as not pressed.
3. This interlocutory application has been filed for substitution of
legal heirs in terms of Chapter-XII, Rule - 97(D) of the High Court of
Jharkhand Rules, 2001.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the
awardee no. 1 namely Mahadev Oraon in First Appeal No. 486 of
2018 and Award No. 88 died leaving behind his legal heirs on
14.07.2016 after passing of the award. The learned counsel submits
that legal heirs of Late Mahadev Oraon namely, Bandhan Oraon and
Tuntun Oraon have been made appellants in this case. He submits that
office defect in this connection may be ignored.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection to the
prayer made in this interlocutory application.
6. Considering the submissions, I.A. No. 4039 of 2021 is hereby
allowed.
7. The office defect in connection with Bandhan Oraon and
Tuntun Oraon having been made party , and Mahadev Oraon having
not been made party, is hereby ignored.
8. Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties in
I.A. No. 4038 of 2021 seeking condonation of delay in filing the
appeal. As per the office note, the delay is for a period of 1503 days.
The appeal was filed before this Court on 29.11.2018 and the petition
seeking condonation of delay was filed on 12.08.2021. In the
meantime, an order dated 02.12.2020 was passed by this Court
observing that the Union of India through Defence Estate Officer has
also preferred appeal against the award which is numbered as First
Appeal No. 367 of 2018 and by the said order, the deficit court fees
were directed to be deducted from the amount of compensation which
may be received by the appellants.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants, by referring to the petition
for condonation of delay, has submitted that the appellants are land
losers and in spite of the award, nothing has been paid to them so as to
enable them to pay the court fees and consequently, the aforesaid
order has been passed on 02.12.2020. He has also submitted that the
said order was preceded by another order passed in First Appeal No.
203 of 2014 dated 31.08.2018 wherein also similar order was passed.
He has submitted the appellants are daily wagers and are extremely
poor people and some of the land losers are even out of their village
and therefore, they could not file appeal within time and once they
came to know that the court fees can be exempted then under such
circumstances, they immediately took step and filed appeal before this
Court. He submits that upon pointing out of defect and after seeking
exemption from payment of court fees, the petition for condonation of
delay has been filed.
10. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-
Union of India has opposed the prayer by submitting that if the delay
is counted till the date of filing of the petition for condonation of
delay, then the delay would be 2481 days. The appellants have not
explained the delay in filing the petition for condonation of delay in
the present case.
11. The learned Senior counsel for the Union of India has also
relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 31248 of 2018 [Pathapati Subba
Reddy (Died) by L.Rs. & others Vs. The Special Deputy Collector
(LA)] decided on 08.04.2024 (paragraph 26(vi)] to submit that merely
some of the persons have obtained relief in similar matter, same does
not mean that the others are entitled to the same benefit, if the Court is
not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal.
12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds
that an order dated 31.08.2018 was passed in First Appeal No. 203 of
2014 wherein it was directed that the deficit court fees will be
deducted from the amount of compensation and then only the rest of
the amount will be released, if any, to the claimants.
13. This Court finds that specific averment has been made in the
petition for condonation of delay that the appellant(s) are very poor
persons; some of them are even out of village and are daily wage
earner and they were not able to approach this Court because of
poverty. This factum has not been denied by the respondents in their
counter-affidavit.
14. This Court is of the view that the poverty by itself is a disability
and due to which the appellants were genuinely prevented from
approaching this Court by filing First Appeal.
15. This Court also finds that considering the genuineness of their
grievance, this Court has also passed order dated 02.12.2020 in the
same line as that of First Appeal No. 203 of 2014.
16. So far as the judgment which has been relied upon by the
respondents passed in the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (Supra) is
concerned, this Court is of the view that none of the claimants have
actually obtained any relief and the matter regarding compensation is
under challenge not only in this appeal, but even Union of India has
filed an appeal arising out of the same award and further, this Court is
satisfied with the cause shown by the appellants for delay in filing the
appeal.
17. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, the delay in
filing the present First Appeal is hereby condoned and this
interlocutory application is allowed.
18. Admit.
19. It has been reported that the records from the learned arbitrator
has already been received in F.A. No. 367 of 2018.
20. Let this case be tagged along with First Appeal No. 451 of 2018
and analogous cases which arise out of the same award.
21. Post this case on 12th February 2025 in the supplementary
cause-list.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Pankaj
