Karnataka High Court

The Assistant Commissioner And ... vs Sabina Sultana W/O Syed Syed Iqbal ... on 29 July, 2021

Author: Dr. H.B.Prabhakara Sastry

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2021

                           BEFORE

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

     MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL No.200030/2020 (LAC)
                          C/W
     MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL No.200031/2020 (LAC)

IN MSA NO.200030/2020

BETWEEN:

1.     THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
       AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BIDAR

2.     THE SUPERINTENDENT
       DISTRICT CENTRAL JAIL, BIDAR
                                                    ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR R. TENGLI, AGA)

AND:

SABIHA SULTANA
W/O SYED IQBAL HASMI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O BIDAR
                                                    ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SHESHADRI JAISHANKAR M., ADVOCATE)


       THIS MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 54(2) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT PRAYING TO CALL
FOR RECORDS IN LAC NO.12/2008 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL
JUDGE (SR., DN.,) BIDAR DATED 13.07.2010 AND ALSO THE
RECORDS    IN   M.A.NO.53/2011   ON   THE   FILE   OF   ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BIDAR, AS PER ORDER DATED
                                             MSA No.200030/2020 C/W
                                                MSA No.200031/2020
                                 2


29.07.2013 AND THEREBY ALLOW THE INSTANT MEMORANDUM OF
MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL AND TO SET ASIDE THE AWARD
PASSED BY THE REFERENCE COURT THROUGHOUT COST.


IN MSA NO.200031/2020

BETWEEN:

1.     THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
       AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
       BIDAR-585401

2.     THE SUPERINTENDENT
       DISTRICT CENTRAL JAIL
       BIDAR-585401
                                                    ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR R. TENGLI, AGA)


AND:

SYED KABIRUDDIN
S/O MUNIRODDIN HASHMI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O BIDAR-585401
                                                    ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SHESHADRI JAISHANKAR M., ADVOCATE)


       THIS MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 54(2) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT PRAYING TO CALL
FOR RECORDS IN LAC NO.6/2008 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL
JUDGE (SR., DN.,) BIDAR DATED 13.07.2010 AND ALSO THE
RECORDS    IN   M.A.NO.54/2011   ON   THE   FILE   OF   ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BIDAR, AS PER ORDER DATED
29.07.2013 AND THEREBY ALLOW THE INSTANT MEMORANDUM OF
MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL AND TO SET ASIDE THE AWARD
PASSED BY THE REFERENCE COURT THROUGHOUT COST.
                                           MSA No.200030/2020 C/W
                                              MSA No.200031/2020
                                3


      THESE MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEALS COMING ON FOR
ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING,
THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                             ORDER

The learned counsel from both sides are physically

present in the Court.

2. Both these appeals have been filed by the State

challenging the judgments passed by the District Court in land

acquisition matter in appeals under Section 54 of the Land

Acquisition Act r/w Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil

Procedure. In MSA No.200030/2020 there is a delay of 2285

days in filing the appeal. In MSA No.200031/2020 there is a

delay of 3397 days in filing the appeal. Seeking condonation of

the delay, the appellants have filed I.A.No.1/2020 one each in

both the appeals under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

3. In support of both the applications, the Assistant

Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, Bidar, has filed his

affidavits wherein he has stated that initially the Government

decided not to prefer any appeal. However, subsequently, it

noticed the availability of certain important grounds to be taken MSA No.200030/2020 C/W MSA No.200031/2020

in the appeals, as such, it decided to prefer appeals. Thus,

there was five years time taken in the process when the files

reached the office of the Advocate General at Bengaluru.

Thereafter, in order to obtain certified copies of the relevant

orders and the documents, it took some more time. The

deponent has also stated that, in the meantime, due to rush of

his official work and frequent representations by the elected

Gram Panchayat members for the purpose of moving 'No

Confidence Motion' against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha in

Bidar Taluk and Aurad Taluk, he could not contact the

Government Advocate's office and ensure filing of the appeals

thus, the delay has been caused.

4. The respondent in both the matters have filed

statement of objections, wherein they have specifically denied

sufficiency of the cause shown explaining the delay by the

appellants in their affidavits. They have further stated that the

reasons shown are not convincing and not sufficient. The

respondents have also stated that the properties of the

respondents were acquired as early as in the year 1978 and

after thirty two years, the appellants have come up with the MSA No.200030/2020 C/W MSA No.200031/2020

present appeals. Thus, despite such a long time, no end has

been put to the process of acquisition.

5. The learned Additional Government Advocate for

the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents

reiterated the contents of their applications and statement of

objections even in their arguments also.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents further

submitted that the awarded compensation amount has been

already released in favour of the respondents.

7. In MSA No.200030/2020, delay is 2285 days which

is nearly six years three months. Similarly, in connected MSA

No.200031/2020, delay is 3397 days which is more than nine

years three months. For such enormous delay, the reasons given

by the applicants are nothing but their alleged administrative

reasons and the delay on the part of the government machinery

to take appropriate steps in ensuring filing of the appeals. As

stated by the deponent himself, earlier the State is said to have

taken decision not to prefer appeals and thereafter, decided to

prefer appeals. Thus, the State was not clear in its view at the MSA No.200030/2020 C/W MSA No.200031/2020

earliest point of time and the said process has taken not less

than five years, thereby, the request for filing the appeals

reached the office of the Advocate General only in the year

2018. Even thereafter, the appeals were not filed immediately.

It took two more years in the process of filing the appeals, for

which, the reason given by the applicants is that there was

delay in obtaining certified copies of the orders and other

documents. If the government expresses its inability in

obtaining certified copies and documents at the earliest and

does not show any diligence or interest in filing the appeals at

the earliest, it is really surprising.

The reason shown that the deponent/Assistant

Commissioner was busy in his official work is not entertainable

and not an admissible excuse for an Executive to give such a

reason. Merely because, he is said to have been busy in his

official work, the Assistant Commissioner cannot be expected

to ignore his another duty of preferring appeals if he is

directed to do so before the appropriate Court of law. Thus,

the cause shown by the deponent is nothing but confession

made out for slow moving of the office of the concerned

authorities who were required to file appeals at the earliest MSA No.200030/2020 C/W MSA No.200031/2020

point of time, for whose act, the respondents cannot be

penalised or put to any hardship.

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Basawaraj

and another Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,

reported in 2013(4) KCCR 3430 (SC), was pleased to observe

as below:

" The statute of Limitation is founded on public policy, its aim being to secure peace in the community, to suppress fraud and perjury, to quicken diligence and to prevent oppression. It seeks to burry all acts of the past which have not been agitated unexplainably and have from lapse of time become stale. An unlimited limitation would lead to a sense of insecurity and uncertainty, and therefore, limitation prevents disturbance or deprivation of what may have been acquired in equity and justice by long enjoyment or what may have been lost by a party's own inaction, negligence' or latches."

It was further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the same case that, MSA No.200030/2020 C/W MSA No.200031/2020

" "Sufficient cause" means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the Court within limitation. In case of a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bonafide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No Court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the Court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamount to showing utter disregard to the legislature."

9. In the light of the above judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court, since as analysed above, the cause shown by the

applicants explaining the delay is not convincing and cannot be

held as sufficient cause, I do not find any reason to allow both

the applications.

MSA No.200030/2020 C/W MSA No.200031/2020

10. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

I.A.No.1/2020 in MSA No.200030/2020 and

I.A.No.1/2020 in MSA No.200031/2020 are dismissed.

Consequently, both the Miscellaneous Second Appeals also

stand dismissed as barred by time.