State Of Orissa vs Rangadhar Senapati & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 13948 Ori

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                               L.A.A No.31 of 2009

State of Orissa                       .....                                Appellant
                                                            Mr. B. Panigrahi, ASC
                                      Vs.
Rangadhar Senapati & Ors.             .....                             Respondents
                                                     Mr. B. S. Panigrahi, Advocate

                     CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

                                             ORDER

08.11.2023 L.A.A No.31 of 2009, Misc. Case Nos.91 of 2009 & 29 of 2011

Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

07.

2. Learned Counsel for the parties are present.

3. As per the Office note, the deficit Court Fee is yet to be paid. The Misc. Case filed on 21.05.2009 to grant two months time to pay the deficit Court Fee has become infructuous since long. There after no step has been taken by the State Appellant for extension of time to deposit the court fee.

4. Further, as pointed out by Office, there is a delay of 392 days in preferring the Appeal. It is ascertained from the pleadings made in the Misc. Case No. 29 of 2011 that the said delay has not been properly explained.

5. That apart, Mr. B. S. Panigrahi, learned Counsel for the private Respondents draws attention of this Court to the impugned award passed by the referral Court and submits, the referral Court enhanced the price of the land based on the judgment passed in L.A. Reference No.08 of 2005 marked as Exhibit 1 so also relied on the

judgment reported in 1989 (I) OLR 408 (Land Acquisition Officer v. Ratha Sahu). Hence, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned award.

6. In view of the above, the application for time to deposit the Court Fee being infructuous stands dismissed. Similarly, the application for condonation of delay as well as Appeal also stand dismissed on the ground of delay and laches so also for non-taking of steps for about fourteen years for deposit of court fees.

7. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits, though operation of the impugned award has not been stayed by this court, because of the pendency of the present appeal, the Authority concerned did not deposit the enhanced compensation amount before the referral Court in terms of direction given vide the impugned award.

8. In view of the above, the Appellant is directed to act upon in terms of the award passed in L.A. Reference No.08 of 2005 and deposit the amount, as directed vide by the said award, within 6 weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.

(S.K.MISHRA) JUDGE

Banita

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI Designation: JR. STENOGRAPHER Reason: AUTHENTICATION Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 09-Nov-2023 18:45:54