Zone Officer vs Mandara Bewa & Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 12274 Ori

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                 LAA No.46 of 2004
            Zone Officer, L.A.-II, UIP,         ....         Appellants
            Kusumkhunti
                                                   Mr.P.K. Parhi, ASG
                                       -versus-

            Mandara Bewa & Others                  ....          Respondents
                                                               Mr.D. Mund
                                                                  Advocate

                       CORAM:
                       MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
                                     ORDER

30.11.2021 Misc. Case No.216 of 2004 Order No.

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

2. This is an Appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter called as the 'L.A. Act') in question the judgment/award dated 23.09.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division,, Dharamgarh, Kalahandi, in M.J.C. No.17 of 1998.

The Memorandum of Appeal having been presented after delay of 629 days, this application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal has been filed.

3. Heard Mr.G.N.Rout, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Appellant and Mr.M.K.Mohapatra, learned counsel on behalf of Mr.D.Mund, learned counsel for the Respondents.

4. It is submitted by the learned Additional Standing Counsel that this delay has taken place as a lot of time has been consumed in processing the matter from one table to the other at the Government level wherefrom instruction had been sought for as to further action in the matter. He submits that although the delay is

// 2 //

for a long period, it is neither intentional or deliberate. He, therefore, urges that taking the above facts and circumstances into account the delay be condoned.

Mr.Mohapatra, learned counsel on behalf of the Respondents submits that the impugned judgment/award having been passed on 23.09.2002, the Memorandum of Appeal has been finally presented before this Court on 17.09.2004. According to him, the explanations as given are too casual and those cannot be held as sufficient causes standing for condoning the long delay of 629 days.

5. Keeping in view the submissions made, the averments taken in the petition being perused, it is seen that explanations for the delay are very casual. When it is seen that the impugned judgment/award has been passed on 23.09.2002, the application for the certified copy has been made only on 4.1.2003 and then also it is said that lots of time was spent for collection of the documents when the fact remains that the State was resisting the claim of enhancement of compensation in the said reference under section 18 of the L.A. Act. All these being cumulatively viewed, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case has been made out for condoning the delay of 629 days (1 year 8 months 8 days) by saying that there are sufficient causes for not filing the Appeal in time.

6. In the wake of aforesaid, the Misc. Case stands dismissed.

(D. Dash), Judge.

LAA No.46 of 2004 Order No.

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

// 3 //

2. Consequent upon the order passed in the aforesaid misc.

Case, this Appeal stands dismissed.

(D. Dash), Judge.

Basu