9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 637X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 208 of 2007 (For Condonation of Delay) Alongwith Civil Application No. 3209 of 2007(For stay) in first Appeal ST. No. 11222 of 2007 in L.A.R. No. 25 of 2003 For the Appellant : G.P. Mulekar, Assistant Government Pleader For the Respondents : S.G. Surana and U.P. Warunjikar, Advs. in Civil Application Nos. 5442 of 2007 and 5443 of 2007 JUDGMENT Swatanter Kumar, C.J. 1. All the above mentioned appeals have been preferred by the State of Maharashtra against the judgment and award of the reference court and are barred by time. The State has filed applications for condonation of delay on somewhat similar explanation in all these cases. Thus, it would be appropriate to dispose of all these applications and the appeals by by a common judgment. The relevant facts giving rise to the present appeals are (reference is made to the facts of First Appeal Stamp No. 11231 of 2008 and First Appeal Stamp No. 22703 of 2008 an under. The State Government issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, on 3rd February, 1970. In furtherance to this notification, declaration under Section 6 was publis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Panvel-Matheran road are near to the lands in question and there was tremendous growth of industrial activity and the potential of the land of the petitioners was immense. Amenities like school, college, market, hospital were available nearby the acquired lands. The references under Section 28A were filed within time and they had relied upon the statement of PW1 Ambaji Gopal Mali, Power of Attorney holder of the claimant and were decided by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel fixing the value of the land ranging between Rs. 32/-to Rs. 38/-per sq.mtr. of various lands in the vicinity and on this basis, the claimants claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 60/-per sq. mtr. The learned reference court decided all the petitions filed before the court under Section 28A by a common judgment and award dated 4.11.2004 granting enhanced compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 29/-per sq. mtr. in all the five references. While the concerned court dealing with the petition under Section 18 of the Act viz. Land Reference No. 8 of 2004 also enhanced the compensation and directed the State of Maharashtra to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 30/-per sq. mtr. The State felt aggrie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... even if the court is to overlook all other intervening delays at different stages, not even iota of explanation has been rendered for a very prolonged and serious delay occurring between 15th February, 2005 to 22nd June, 2005 and thereafter, from 29th June, 2005 to 3rd March, 2007. The list of dates given and the explanation rendered in the application which in any case, is without any substantial or sufficient cause. There is not even a whisper as to what steps were taken by any authority or department during this period. The public authority or a department is not expected to be in negligent or to take no action for years and let the matters become barred by time surely because of its negligence and inaction. 5. In Civil application No. 5442 of 2007 again a table of dates has been stated in para 2 and there is no explanation whatsoever and not even an averment has been made in the entire application as to what steps have been taken by any department or authority between the period 24th June, 2005 to 15th May, 2007. In other words, certainly for a period of 2 years, there was complete inaction and negligence on the part of the concerned Government offices. Even there is considerab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vember, 1980 in the presence of the counsel and the appeal was filed in the year 1982. At this stage, we may refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal and Ors. v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. [1962]2SCR762 wherein the Court held as under: In construing Section 5 it is relevant to bear in mind two important considerations. The first consideration is that the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed for making an appeal gives rise to a right in favour of the decree holder to treat the decree as binding between the parties and this legal right which has accrued to the decree holder by lapse of time should not be light heartedly disturbed. The other consideration which cannot be ignored is that if sufficient cause for excusing delay is shown discretion is given to the Court to condone delay and admit the appeal. ILR 13 Mad 13 Mad 269, Approved. It is however, necessary to emphasis that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the court by Section 5. This aspec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the Miscellaneous First Appeal shall stand dismissed as barred by time. No costs, In the application for condonation of delay hardly any reason has been stated. All that has been stated is that no authorised person had appeared on behalf of the appellant when the decree was passed on 5th November, 1980. Thereafter, application was filed under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC. Both these applications were dismissed by the trial Court on 16th February, 1980 as not maintainable and the appellant came to know about the said orders on 17th February, 1982. Thereafter, an appeal was filed in this Court on 3rd March, 1982. Except giving these dates, the application gives no explanation, much less a sufficient cause for justifying the prayer for condonation of delay. The vague averments in the application cannot be the basis for denying a substantial benefit in law to the respondent. The right of the other party cannot be taken away on such averments, which would constitute no sufficient cause on the true and correct interpretation of the sufficient cause contemplated under the provisions of the Limitation Act. We find no merit in this application and would decline to condone the delay. 9. Even in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to claim condonation of delay dehors averments in the application. For these reasons, we find no merit in these applications and decline to condone the delay and dismiss both these applications. 7. In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. (1987)ILLJ500SC , the Supreme Court spelt out the percepts which will govern the approach of the Court while entertaining the applications for condonation of delay stating that `every day's delay must be explained' does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. This doctrine must be applied with common sense and in a rational and pragmatic manner. The approach should be justice oriented and the courts, therefore, have to confirm with the spirit and philosophy of the provisions in the course of the interpretation of the expression sufficient cause . In other words, a reasonable and sufficient cause must be shown for generally condoning the delay, particularly, when delay runs into years. The State may not be expected to explain each day's delay as a private party may be called upon to do. Even if it is taken that State may not be equated with a private individual litigant for which, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... very month's or year's delay by giving some plausible and proper reason. The applicant- State has miserably failed to give any reasonable or sufficient cause which could justify the condonation of delay of more than four years in filing the appeal. A definite right accrues to the non-applicant, whose land has been acquired, merely because the State opts to act with such callous, cannot constitute a sufficient cause in law. The State may not despatch the burden of showing the sufficient cause like a private litigant but it must cumulatively and collectively by stating the correct facts show to the court that there is reasonable and bonafide excuse on the part of the State and, therefore, delay in filing the appeal could be condoned. The present application is not only fall short of sufficient cause or a reasonable cause but is vague, indefinite and is not substantiated by any documentary evidence. 8. At the cost of repetition, we may also notice that in the case of State of Haryana v. Jit Ram RFA No. 2129 of 1997 decided on 19.11.1999 while following the principle enunciated by the supreme Court in P.K. Ramachandran's case, the court also stated that a right accrues to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e State in exercise of its statutory power and eminent domain. The claimants are owners of small parcel/parts of lands varying between 2000 and 4000 sq. mtrs. and deprivation of their legitimate dues on account of compensation would not be in the interest of justice. Secondly, the claimants have not been paid their enhanced compensation for a considerable time and/or they have not received the same. If the appeals are admitted and interim orders are passed, it obviously will result in affecting the rights of the claimants to receive the enhanced compensation, adversely. More so when the claims have been enhanced by the Court of competent jurisdiction in exercise of its powers under Sections 28-A and 18 of the Act primarily based upon the awards which have been made by the Courts from time to time in relation to the same land or adjacent lands and for the same Notification. Despite, awards/judgments of the Courts, which have even attained finality, the Claimants are not permitted to receive compensation that itself would be a sufficient prejudice to their rights. It is not in dispute that the compensation has been enhanced to Rs. 29/-and/or Rs. 30/-by the awards under appeal, while ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o provide solution to this problem. The inordinate delays occurring from inaction or non-co-operation of the departments, as is demonstrated by the facts of the present cases, needs to be corrected and it will be desirable to fix the responsibility of the erring officer/official. The concept of public accountability for default of performance of statutory and public duties relatable to the powers vested in the authorities under the Act or other administrative authorities, is squarely applicable. In the case of Mahender Kumar v. Land Acquisition Collector (2006) 5 AD 420, the Court after discussing various judgments of the Supreme Court in great detail held that actions of administrative authorities are accountable and doctrine of full pay and credit is applicable in discharge of their duties. Their actions, besides being open to judicial review, would attract judicial chasticism if there is complete negligence and non-cooperation in functioning of the authority merely in furtherance to statutory powers. The doctrine of public accountability would require authorities to act timely and be responsible for their acts. Development of law which has even extended to which the State is lia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
