Orissa High Court
Land Acquisition Officer vs Lada Pradhan & Another on 4 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
LAA No.49 of 2017
Land Acquisition Officer, .... Appellant
Kalahandi
Mr. G.N. Rout,
Addl. Standing Counsel
-versus-
Lada Pradhan & Another .... Respondents
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
ORDER
04.12.2021
LAA No.49 of 2017
AND
I.A. No.38 of 2020
& M.C. Case No.88 of 2017
03. 1. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal under Section-54 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the LA Act) seeks to
assail the judgment/award dated 07.01.2011 passed by the learned
Civil Judge, Senior Division (hereinafter, called as 'the Referral
Court') in L.A.R. Case No.27 of 2007 in the matter of reference
under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. The required Court fees for the Appeal having not been
filed an application for grant of time of two months had been filed
with the Memorandum of Appeal, which has been numbered as
Misc. Case No.88 of 2017. However, the fact stands that even
when by now more than four years have passed, the required court
fees has not been filed as yet. So, the prayer, as advanced therein
does not survive for consideration. It is also stated that a Memo
being filed on 12.09.2017 by the legal representatives of the
// 2 //
deceased-Respondent No.2; the Appellant has also taken no step
for substitution as yet.
3. The Memorandum of Appeal having been presented on
07.07.2017 after delay of 2262 days (6 years 2 months 12 days), an
application under section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed on
12.03.2020 with the prayer for condonation of delay in not filing
the Appeal within the period as prescribed which has been
numbered as I.A. No.38 of 2020.
4. Heard Mr. G.N. Rout, learned Additional Standing
Counsel.
5. Perused the averments taken in the petition in support of
the prayer for condonation of delay.
It is seen that the Referral Court has passed the
judgment/award on 07.01.2011 and the Memorandum of Appeal
has been presented before this Court on 07.07.2017. There has
been delay of 2262 days i.e. 6 years, 2 months and 12 days in filing
the Appeal. It is stated in the application that the judgment/award
being passed on 07.01.2011, the certified copy of the same was
received by the Appellant on 01.11.2011 along with the opinion of
the Government Pleader and thereafter the Land Acquisition
Officer, Kalahandi collected the documents and submitted the
same to the Government on 07.07.2017 for filing Appeal. The
Govt. in the Department of Water Resources after obtaining
necessary permission from the Law Department, gave necessary
instruction to the Appellant vide letter dated 25.08.2012 to file this
Appeal.
Mr. G.N. Rout, learned Additional Standing Counsel
reiterating the averments taken in the application contends that the
// 3 //
delay under the circumstances as narrated being neither intentional
nor deliberate need be condoned.
A plain reading of the averments as above at paragraph-
2of the application would reveal as to how callously and in a
cavalier fashion the matter has been dealt without giving slightest
regard with the provision contained in the Limitation Act
prescribing the time frame for approaching the higher Court in
carrying the Appeal. The long period lapsed in obtaining the copy
of the judgment/award and sending the same to the L.A.O has
remained totally unexplained. The said file appears to have
remained in the concerned Department and other department for a
long length of time. It is not at all accepted that after about ten
months, the Appellant received the copy of the impugned
judgment/award when the fact remains that the claim of the
Respondents (Claimants) before the Referral Court was being
contested by the Appellant. The Appellant, by acting in such
manner appears to have remained under impression that in so far as
the State and its Officials are concerned, the provision of the
Limitation Act relating to the time frame for filing the Appeal does
not apply and thus it is permissible to file the Appeal as and when
so desired.
6. In the present case, when the land loosers, having lost their
land and having fought out the case, are waiting to see the day to
receive their just and proper compensation, such casual
conduct/action in dealing with the matter is not expected from the
concerned State Officials including the Appellant.
7. For all the aforesaid, this Court finding no such sufficient
cause to have been standing on the way of the Appellant in not
filing the Appeal within the prescribed time and filing this Appeal
// 4 //
after delay of 6 years 2 months 12 days; is not inclined to entertain
this application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for
condonation of delay in filing the Appeal.
8. Accordingly, the I.A. as well as Misc. Case and
consequently the LAA stand dismissed. No order as to cost.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(D. Dash),
Judge.
Basu
