Chakra Bhoi @ Chakradhar Bhoi vs The Special Land Acquisition
2021 Latest Caselaw 12536 Ori

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                             LAA No.38 of 2021

        Chakra Bhoi @ Chakradhar Bhoi          ....           Appellant
                                                    Mr.B.K. Beherea-1
                                                            Advocate
                                    -versus-

        The Special Land Acquisition           ....        Respondents
        Officer, Lower Indra Irrigation                  Mr.G.N. Rout
        Project, Nuapada                                         ASC


                  CORAM:
                  MR. JUSTICE D.DASH

                                   ORDER

06.12.2021 Order I.A. No.95 of 2021 No.

01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

2. Heard.

3. Considering the submissions made and on going through the averments taken in the petition, the prayer for exemption of the Appellant in paying the court fee is allowed.

4. The I.A. is disposed of.

                                                (D. Dash)
                                                 Judge
                             LAA No.38 of 2021
                                   AND
Order                        I.A. No.94 of 2021
No.
 02.    1.      This is an Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition

Act, 1984 (hereinafter called as 'the L.A. Act') in challenging the judgment/award dated 15.03.2018 passed by the learned Senior

// 2 //

Civil Judge, Nuapada in L.A.R. 48 of 2014 in the matter of a reference under section 18 of the L.A. Act in determining the market value of the acquired 'Mala' land of the Appellant-claimant No.3 at Rs.92,000/- per acre and Bahal land @ Rs.1,15,000/- per acre; further holding that he compensation as awarded for the trees by the Land Acquisition Officer be enhanced by 4 times and for the well it be doubled.

The judgment/award being passed on 15.03.2018, since the Memorandum of Appeal has been presented on 15.11.2021, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed for condonation of delay.

It is stated that the delay of 3 and half years in filing the Appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional but due to unavoidable and bona fide circumstances beyond the control of the Appellant- claimant. It is stated that the Appellant-Claimant is an illiterate person and he could only know about the passing of the order by the referral court after long lapse of time when the other land loosers received the compensation for their acquired land. Thereafter, the certified copy of the order being applied for on 27.9.2021, the same was received thereafter and then establishing contact with the learned counsel, having found that the determination of the market value of the land and compensation awarded by the referral court is still on lower side, the Appeal has been filed.

2. Mr.B.Behera, learned counsel for the Appellant-claimant submits that the Appellant-claimant being an illiterate person, had no idea about the court proceeding and the result of the reference being not informed to them, the delay has occasioned for which he is not responsible.

// 3 //

Mr.G.N.Rout, learned Additional Standing Counsel opposes the move. According to him, the reference had been made at the instance of the Appellant-claimant and other claimants when they having found the assessment of the compensation for their land as made by the Land Acquisition Officer to be on a lower side, had so protested. He further submits that in the said reference proceeding, the claimants have tendered evidence and more particularly one of them has examined himself in support of such enhancement of compensation before the referral court as P.W.1 besides proving the certified copies of the registered sale deeds as well as the judgment/award passed by the referral court in LAR No.151 of 2010, which has been taken note of by the referral Court. He, therefore, submits that it cannot be said that the Appellant-claimant and other claimants were not aware of the result of the reference and, therefore, could not take proper steps in not challenging the judgment/award for such a long period.

3. Keeping in view the above submissions, the averments taken in the application as well as the judgment/award impugned being gone through, it is seen that this Appellant-claimant was very much participating in the said reference. Besides examining two witnesses, the claimants have also proved certain documents in support of their claim of enhancement of compensation and the learned counsel engaged by them had cross-examined the witnesses examined from the side of the Respondents and has taken part in arguing before the referral Court.

In view of the above happenings in the proceeding before the referral court, the contention that the Appellant-claimant and other claimants could not know about the result of the proceeding

// 4 //

as to determination of the compensation after the judgment/award was passed for such a long period cannot at all be believed.

4. In view of the aforesaid, the explanations as to the sufficient cause to have stood on the way of the Appellant- claimant in justifying the filing of the Appeal after three and half years are not plausible and as such not accepted. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to reject the prayer for condonation of delay of three and half years in filing the Appeal.

5. The I.A. and LAA thus stand dismissed.

(D. Dash), Judge.