Ganapati Majhi vs The Special Land Acquisition
2021 Latest Caselaw 11786 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                LAA NO.29 OF 2021

            Ganapati Majhi                         ....          Appellant
                                       Mr. Bijaya Kumar Behera, Advocate

                                       -versus-
            The Special Land Acquisition           ....           Respondent
            Officer, Lower Indra Irrigation
            Project, Khariar

                      CORAM:
                      MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
                                      ORDER

16.11.2021 LAA No. 29 of 2021 & I.A. No.67 of 2021 Order No.

01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement (virtual/physical mode).

2. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal under Section-54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the LA Act) has assailed the judgment/award dated 11.12.2017 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nuapada in L.A.R Case No.104 of 2017.

The Memorandum of Appeal has been presented on 03.08.2021 after delay of about three and half years.

For the above, an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed with the prayer for condonation of delay.

3. Heard.

4. The acquisition of land in question is pursuant to the notification of January, 2001. The poverty of the Appellant is // 2 //

projected as the ground for condonation of delay. It is stated that the Appellant due to his poverty could not file the Appeal in time and the delay is thus said to be neither deliberate nor intentional.

5. Perusal of the record reveals that the Appellant has obtained the certified copies of the judgment/award only in the month of June, 2021. It also reveals from the award that the Appellant after the assessment of the compensation made by the Land Acquisition Officer and prior to his entering appearance before the Referral Court had received a sum of Rs. 3,13,959/- as compensation. The reference under section 18 of the LA Act having been made in the year 2017, it has been answered by the Referral Court in the same year by pronouncing the judgment/award on 11.12.2017. It has nowhere been stated that the Petitioner despite such judgment/award has not been paid with the enhanced compensation and for that the Petitioner is still purusing the acquisition proceeding.

6. In view of all these aforesaid, I do not find any sufficient reason as to have prevented the Appellant from filing the Appeal for all these three and half years.

In that view of the matter this Court is not inclined to entertain this Application for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal.

7. Accordingly, the I.A. and consequently, the Appeal stand dismissed.

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

(D. Dash), Judge.

Aks