Jani Senapati vs Land Acquisition Zone
2023 Latest Caselaw 306 Ori

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                           LAA No. 7 of 2022

Jani Senapati                     .....                         Petitioner/
                                                               Appellant

                                                 Mr. S.K. Joshi, Advocate

                                  Vs.
Land Acquisition Zone             .....                    Opposite Party/
Officer, Khurdha Road                                       Respondent
Bolangir, New. B.G., Rail
Link Project, Boudh
                                                       Mr. G. N. Rout, ASC


                   CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

                                       ORDER

09.01.2023 I.A. No.19 of 2022 Order No. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

04.

2. This application has been filed under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying therein to defer the deposit of Court Fee till disposal of the Appeal on the ground that though the Petitioner-Appellant filed LAR & R Case No.92 of 2020 under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the same was dismissed vide Order dated 27.08.2021 and the impugned judgment being a nil award, unless the payment of Court Fee is deferred till disposal of the Appeal, the Petitioner- Appellant will be seriously prejudiced.

3. It being a statutory Appeal, even if the same is arising out of nil award, the Petitioner-Appellant is required to pay the Court Fee, as pointed out by the office.

This Court is not satisfied with the reasons assigned in the I.A. to defer the payment of Court Fee till disposal of the Appeal. However, the I.A. is disposed of with the condition that the Appeal will be taken up for admission only after payment of Court Fee.

(S.K. MISHRA) JUDGE

I.A. No.22 of 2022

05. This is an application for condonation of delay.

2. As per the office note, there is a delay of 82 days in preferring the Appeal.

3. Since learned Counsel for the State accepts notice on behalf of the sole respondent and has already received a copy of the I.A., there is no need to issue notice on the question of limitation.

4. Though the learned Counsel for the State opposes to the said application for condondation of delay, as the impugned judgment was pronounced during the extended period of limitation due to outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic interms of the order of the Apex Court, so also in view of reasons assigned in the application, this Court is inclined to condone the delay and pass orders accordingly.

5. The I.A. stands disposed of.

(S.K. MISHRA) JUDGE LAA No.7 of 2022

06. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that a copy of the Memorandum of Appeal has already been served on the learned Counsel for the State.

2. In view of the Order passed today in I.A. No.19 of 2022, so also prayer made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, matter be listed under the heading "Fresh Admission" during 2nd week of March, 2023, subject to payment of deficit Court Fee, as pointed out by the office.

padma (S.K. MISHRA) JUDGE