The Land Acquisition Authority vs Jyotimayee Pradhan & Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 11927 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                  LAA No.9 of 2020


            The Land Acquisition Authority, ....                Appellant
            Deogarh
                                           Mr. Gajendra Nath Rout, ASC

                                    -versus-
            Jyotimayee Pradhan & Others      ....                 Respondents
                                                      Mr.B.Samantray,Adv
                                                      (R.1 to 6 & R.8 to 19)



                      CORAM:
                      MR. JUSTICE D.DASH

                                        ORDER

22.11.2021

I.A. No.30 of 2020 Order No.

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

2. Heard.

3. In view of the payment of the deficit court fee which is hereby accepted; the prayer advanced in this application does not survive for consideration.

4. The I.A. is accordingly disposed of.

(D. Dash) Judge.

// 2 //

ORDER 22.11.2021

L.A.A. No.9 of 2020 & I.A. No.31 of 2020 Order No.

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

2. The objection filed by the Respondents in Court today is taken on record.

3. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short as the 'L.A. Act'), has assailed the judgment/award dated 20.07.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Deogarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Referral Court') in LAR No.83 of 2010.

Challenging the judgment/award dated 20.07.2017, the Memorandum of Appeal having been presented after the delay of 849 days (two years three months and twenty nine days), i.e., on 28.02.2020; an Application under section 5 of the Limitation Act has also been filed for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal.

4. Heard Mr. G.N. Rout, learned Additional Standing Counsel and Mr. B. Samantaray, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 6 and 8 to 19. Gone through the Application for condonation of delay as also the objection filed by the Respondents.

5. It is stated in the Application that in processing the matter observing all the official paraphernalias; this delay has taken place. The certified copy of the judgment/award with the opinion of the learned Government Pleader was received in the Office of the Zone Officer, Land Acquisition Authority, Deogarh on 24.08.2017

// 3 //

and thereafter the matter was sent to the Government in the Department of Water Resources for further necessary instruction in the matter. It is stated that on 22.10.2018 the matter was placed before the Department of Law and finally towards end of September, 2019, letter was sent to the Office of the learned Advocate General to take step in filing the Appeal in consonance with the Government order.

A plain reading of the averments taken at Paragraph-3 and 4 of the Application go to show that save and except stating about the movement of the letters and files from one place to the other, no such reason has been assigned nor cause shown as to the delay behind the very movement of the file and letters.

It thus shows as to how callously and in a cavalier fashion the matter has been dealt without giving slightest regard to the provision in the Limitation Act prescribing the time frame for approaching the higher court in carrying the Appeal. 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 time frame for filing the Appeal does not apply and thus it is permissible to file the Appeal as and when so required.

6. In the present case when the land loosers having lost their lands 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 the Appeal

// 4 //

after delay of two years three months and twenty nine days; rejects the Application under section 5 of the Limitation Act and refuses to condone the delay in filing the Appeal.

8. Consequently, the I.A. as also the LAA stand dismissed. No order as to cost.

9. The Appellant is hereby directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount with all the available statutory benefits/entitlement within four months hence and the payment to the Respondents (claimants) be only routed through the Referral Court and not in any other way and on the failure of the Appellant to deposit as aforesaid, the amount shall carry further interest @ 09% per annum till payment.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, it is felt necessary in the interest of justice to direct the Referral Court that upon deposit of the amount as aforesaid by the Appellant; 80% of the same would be kept in unecumberable and non-pledgeable long term Fixed Deposit of ten years at the minimum in the name of the Respondents (claimants) upon due apportionment amongst them in accordance with their shares in any Nationalized Bank with monthly interest payable to them through their Savings Bank Accounts and the rest 20% shall be paid to the Respondents (claimants) by keeping the same in deposit in their Savings Bank Accounts in the said Bank where the fixed deposit would be kept.

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

(D. Dash) Judge.

Himansu