Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1243 (MP)

District Collector v. Trivedi Chourasiya

2011-11-02

P.K.JAISWAL

body2011
ORDER 1. Heard on I.A.No. 5988/11, an application for condonation of delay. This appeal is barred by 317 days. 2. As per facts mentioned in the application the reference Court passed order on 9.9.2010 by which amount of compensation has been enhanced from Rs.5,69,383/- per hectare to Rs.25,53,191/- per hectare. It is not in dispute. that Executive Engineer of Public Works Department was OIC before the reference Court. After passing of the order he for the first time on 13.7.2011 intimated to the higher authorities to obtain necessary permission for filing of appeal in the High Court. In compliance to the letter dated 13.7.2011 the Secretary, Public Works Department on 29.7.2011 referred the matter to the Law Department for obtaining permission. On 23.8.2011 the permission was granted by the Law Department and the said permission was communicated to the Secretary, Public Works Department. The said communication was received by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department on 27.8.2011 and, thereafter, after a period of more than one month the appeal was filed on 21.10.2011. 3. From the above events it is clear that the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division-II, Indore very well aware about the pendency of the reference and the order dated 9.9.2010 by which the reference Court decided the matter, but he after a period of more than 10 months, for the first time intimated the Secretary, Public Works Department for obtaining permission for filing the appeal to the High Court. The Secretary, Public Works Department immediately on 29.7.2011 referred the matter to the Law Department and on that basis the permission was granted on 23.8.2011, which was received by the OIC of the appellant on 27.8.2011, but in spite of that he filed the appeal on 21.10.2011. Considering this fact the cause shown by the appellants is not at all sufficient to condone the delay of 31 7 days. 4. Learned Government Advocate drew my attention to the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Gangadeep Pratisthan Pvt. Ltd. & another v. M/s. Mechano & Others (2005 AIR SCW 1393), N. Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamurthy ( AIR 1998 SC 3222 ), State of Karnataka v. Moideen Kunhi (dead) by LRs. 4. Learned Government Advocate drew my attention to the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Gangadeep Pratisthan Pvt. Ltd. & another v. M/s. Mechano & Others (2005 AIR SCW 1393), N. Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamurthy ( AIR 1998 SC 3222 ), State of Karnataka v. Moideen Kunhi (dead) by LRs. & others ( AIR 2009 SC 2577 ) and State of Nagaland v. LipokAo and others (2005 AIR SCW 1748), wherein the apex Court has held that Government and private parties cannot be put on same footing in such matters and condoned the delay of 57 days in filing the appeal against acquittal of the accused. In the case of State of Karnataka (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court held that expression 'sufficient cause' must receive liberal construction to advance substantial justice. 5. Each case decided on its own facts and circumstances. Here in the present case the OIC of the appellants is very well aware of the facts and circumstances of the case and the proceedings which was pending before the reference Court as well as the order dated 9.9.2010 but due to his callousness the matter could not be referred to the State Government immediately after order dated 9.9.2010. The cause shown in the application is not at all sufficient to condone the delay of 317 days. 6. In view of the aforesaid, no sufficient ground is made out to condone the delay. Accordingly, IA.No. 5988/11 is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the First Appeal filed by the appellants is also dismissed. However, if the Department comes to the conclusion that the default was due to callousness of the OIC the State is at liberty to recover the amount from him. 7. With the aforesaid, the appeal stands dismissed. S.D. Bohra, Government Advocate for appellants.