Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madhya Pradesh Road Development ... vs Yogesh on 4 February, 2025
1 FA-976-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
FA No. 976 of 2021
(MADHYA PRADESH ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Vs YOGESH AND OTHERS )
FA/978/2021, FA/981/2021, FA/983/2021, FA/985/2021, FA/987/2021, FA/989/2021
Dated : 04-02-2025
Shri Abhinav Dhanodkar - advocate for the appellant along with Ms
Sanjeevani Marathe - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Bheru Lal Bakliya -Advocate for the respondents No.1, 2, 3, 4
and 5 alongwith Shri Shri Rajnikant Bakliya - Advocate
In all the appeals a preliminary objection has been raised relating to
maintainability of the appeals. Hence, they have been heard and are being
disposed of by a common order.
In all appeals objection has been raised by respondents No. 1 to 3, who
are the land owners of the land acquired for the purpose of construction of
'Sinhasth' Bypass Marg. The acquired land was situated at village
Mohanpura, Tehsil Gattia, District Ujjain. Common appellant in all the
appeals have challenged the award of authority under Land Acquisition
Rehabilitation and Resettlement, Ujjain Madhya Pradesh.
Objections have been raised in First appeal No. 985 of 2021 through
IA No. 5960 of 2022, in First Appeal No. 987 of 2021 through IA No. 5965
of 2022, in First Appeal No. 976 of 2021 through IA No. 5961 of 2022, in
First Appeal No. 978 of 2021 through IA No.5954 of 2022, in First Appeal
No. 981 of 2021 through IA No. 5959 of 2022 and in First Appeal No. 983
of 2021 through IA No. 5968 of 2022. The preliminary objection regarding
maintainability of the appeal has been raised on the ground that appeal is
2 FA-976-2021
time barred and appeal has been preferred under Section 54 of Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, whereas challenging the answer to reference by
authority under Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement, the appeal
lies under Section 74 of the Act, 2013.
IA No.5960 of 2022 has been replied through Document No. 6646 of
2023, IA No. 5965 of 2022, through Document No. 6645 of 2023, IA No.
5961of 2022 through document No. 733 of 2024, IA No. 5959 of 2022
through document No. 6646 of 2023. No written reply has been filed
regarding IA No. 5954 of 2022 and IA No. 5968 of 2022, but they have been
orally replied on the same line submitting that in the light of Haryana State
Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., Vs. Deepak and
others, 2022 Live Law (SC) 844 the appeals have been properly filed under
Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 because only determination
pertaining to amount of compensation can be calculated as per the provisions
of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Firstly, Court is dealing the objection regarding the limitation. All the
appeals have been filed on 22.12.2021. First Appeals No. 985 of 2021, 987
of 2021, 976 of 2021, 978 of 2021 have been preferred challenging the order
dated 28.07.2021 and the delay has been mentioned as 87 days. First Appeal
No. 981 of 2021 ha been filed challenging the order dated 31.08.2021 and
the delay has been mentioned as 53 days. First Appeal No. 983 of 2021 has
been preferred challenging the order dated 02.08.2021 and the delay has been
mentioned as 87 days and it is argued that there is no provision for
3 FA-976-2021
condoning the delay.
In all the appeals , the office has reported that all the appeals are
within the period of limitation prescribed for filing the appeal. Office has
taken a note that in all the appeals the application for certified copy was
presented on 08.09.2021 and certified copy was delivered on 01.10.2021. A
period of 24 days consumed for obtaining the certified copy was excluded.
Office has also taken into consideration the extension of Limitation granted
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in recognizance of extention of limitation due to
Covid-19 Pandemic.
For answering the contention raised by the respondents No. 1 to 3,
relevant Paragraph-5 of the Re:Cognizance for extension of Limitation, 2022
Live Law (SC ) 31 is being referred as below :-
"5. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by
learned counsel and the impact of the surge of the virus on public
health and adversities faced by litigants in the prevailing
conditions, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the M.A. No. 21
of 2022 with the following directions:
"I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in
continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021,
27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from
15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of
limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws
in respect of all judicial or quasi judicial proceedings.
II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation
4 FA-976-2021
remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with
effect from 01.03.2022.
III. In cases where the limitation would have expired
during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022,
notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining,
all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from
01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation
remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days,
that longer period shall apply.
IV. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020
till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods
prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts
Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which
prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer
limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and
termination of proceedings."
When the date of order and date of filing the appeals falls within the
period from 15.03.2020 to 18.02.2022 and that period shall be excluded for
the purpose of limitation, as per the Apex Court judgment in Re:Cognizance
for extension of Limitation (supra) then the objection of limitation does not
stand even assuming that period of limitation is only sixty days.
The mention of Section 54 of the of Land Acquisition Act, 1894
5 FA-976-2021
instead of Section 74 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 also does not
render the appeals non-maintainable.
Accordingly, objections regarding maintainability of appeals does not
stand and hence IAs ( Preliminary Objections) are rejected.
All the matters be listed next week.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
rashmi
