9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved
1. Condonation of Delay 2. Enhanced Compensation 3. Procedural Hassles and Government Hierarchy 4. Public Accountability Analysis of the Judgment 1. Condonation of Delay The State of Maharashtra filed appeals against the judgment and award of the reference court, which were barred by time. The State sought condonation of delay, citing procedural hassles and approvals at different levels in the government departments as reasons for the delay. The court noted that all appeals were barred by more than two years. The applications for condonation of delay did not provide substantial or sufficient cause for the delay, particularly between 15th February 2005 to 22nd June 2005 and from 29th June 2005 to 3rd March 2007. The court emphasized that public authorities are not expected to be negligent and must not let matters become barred by time due to inaction. 2. Enhanced Compensation The claimants were dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) and sought enhanced compensation. The reference court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 29/- per sq. meter in five references and Rs. 30/- per sq. meter in one reference. The State felt aggrieved by these judgments and filed appeals. The court noted that the claimants had provided evidence of the potential and value of their land, including sale instances and valuations by experts. 3. Procedural Hassles and Government Hierarchy The State argued that the delay in filing appeals was due to procedural hassles and approvals required at different levels within the government. The court found that the explanations provided were insufficient and lacked details about the steps taken during the prolonged periods of delay. The court highlighted that the State must render reasonable grounds to show sufficient cause for such inordinate delays and that the State is not entitled to claim condonation of delay as a matter of right. 4. Public Accountability The court discussed the principles governing applications for condonation of delay, emphasizing that the court must exercise its discretion judiciously to ensure no serious prejudice is caused to either party. The court referred to various judgments, stating that the expiration of the period of limitation gives rise to a right in favor of the decree holder, which should not be disturbed lightly. The court also noted that the State's inaction and negligence in filing appeals result in increased liability of statutory interest, burdening the public exchequer. The court directed the State Government to constitute a committee to issue guidelines ensuring timely filing of appeals and to introduce the principle of public accountability for inaction or delays by government officials. Conclusion The court declined to condone the delay of more than two years in filing the appeals and dismissed the Civil Applications and Appeals. The court issued directions to the State Government to ensure timely filing of appeals, introduce public accountability, and fix responsibility for inordinate delays. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
|
