Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1506 (HP)

Shanta Karol v. Land Acquisition Collector, NTPC

2016-07-27

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2016
JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Reference petitioner Smt. Shanta Karol is in an appeal before this Court. She has filed the appeal against the award dated 8.6.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Mandi (Camp at Karsog) in reference petition No. 16 of 2010 whereby the petition was dismissed behind her back. 2. There is delay of three years eleven months and twenty two days as occurred in filing the appeal in this Court. The explanation as set out in this application to show sufficient cause is that the applicant-appellant was never served with notice issued to the parties in terms of Section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act for 10.3.2010. The original Counsel representing her in reference petition had never appeared in the trial Court. It is under these circumstances, the reference was dismissed for want of evidence vide award dated 8.6.2011. She came to know through Shri C.L. Avasthi Advocate, Sundernagar that the references preferred by similarly situated persons were accepted by the same Judicial Officer and the compensation enhanced. Also that the enhanced amount of compensation to the tune of 50% also stand released by the High Court to the claimants therein. 3. In reply to the application, the stand of respondent No. 3 establishment beneficiary is that the sufficient cause has not been shown warranting the condonation of an inordinate delay of about four years as occurred in filing the main appeal. It is denied that the applicant-appellant has acquired the knowledge of disposal of similar references by the same Court recently and enhanced the compensation. The application as such has been sought to be dismissed. 4. In the rejoinder, the applicant-appellant has denied the contents to the contrary in the reply and reiterated the averments made in the application. 5. While on behalf of the applicant-appellant, it has been urged that plausible and reasonable explanation having come on record amply demonstrate that the applicant-appellant has been able to show sufficient cause warranting the condonation of delay as occurred in filing the main appeal. At the same time, Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, learned counsel representing respondent No. 3-establishment, has urged that no ground for condonation of delay is made out. At the same time, Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, learned counsel representing respondent No. 3-establishment, has urged that no ground for condonation of delay is made out. Also that, in the event of the appeal is entertained on condonation of delay at this stage i.e. after a period over four years from the date of the award sought to be assailed, the respondent establishment is likely to suffer irreparable loss and injury. 6. On analyzing the rival submissions and having gone through the record, no doubt, the delay as occurred in filing the appeal is inordinate. However, the explanation as set out in para-4 of the application seems to be reasonable and plausible for the reason that the applicant-appellant after presentation of the reference petition before the Land Acquisition Collector concerned, had no knowledge of the same later on was forwarded to the Court of District Judge, Mandi and further assignment thereof to the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Mandi. The notice issued to her under Section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act is available in original on record. The endorsement made by Process Server on the reverse thereof make it crystal clear that the same was never delivered to her. Rather, as per the endorsement made by the office of Accountant General, Himachal Pradesh though she was an employee of the said office, however, has retired from the service on 31.5.2009 i.e. well before the issuance of the notice to her. The notice though was sent to her home address at Tatapani Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi, however, she seems to be not available to the Process Server on the said address and on being informed that she was serving in the office of Accountant General, Himachal Pradesh, he happens to visit the said office where the report was made by an Assistant Accounts Officer that she stands retired from the service. The applicant-appellant as such was never served with notice issued by the trial Court in terms of Section 20 of the Act. As regards Shri O.P. Verma, as per the zimni orders available on record has put in appearance as vice counsel was not authorized by her to appear on her behalf and rather it is Shri N.L. Chauhan, Advocate who had been representing her in the reference petition. The power of attorney of Mr. Chauhan is available on record. As regards Shri O.P. Verma, as per the zimni orders available on record has put in appearance as vice counsel was not authorized by her to appear on her behalf and rather it is Shri N.L. Chauhan, Advocate who had been representing her in the reference petition. The power of attorney of Mr. Chauhan is available on record. The petitioner as such had no occasion to have come to know about the proceedings in the reference petition in progress in the trial Court. 7. The trial Court has never proceeded her against exparte. The zimni order dated 10.12.2010 placed on record reveals that on one hand the time was granted for filing rejoinder to the applicant-appellant and on the other issues were framed simultaneously and the petition adjourned to 10.5.2011 for recording the evidence. It is on that day in the absence of the petitioner the arguments were heard after recording that the evidence has not been produced by the petitioner. 8. In this backdrop, the possibility of the applicant-appellant having acquired the knowledge of disposal of similar references by the same Court and enhancement of compensation somewhere in the month of September 2015 cannot be ruled out. The delay as such stands satisfactorily explained. The anxiety of Mr. Neeraj Gupta, learned counsel that in the event of the delay is condoned and the appeal is entertained as well as decided in favour of the applicant appellant on merits, the respondent-establishment is likely to be burdened with unwanted and uncalled for expenditure to be incurred upon by way of payment of interest etc. on account of the failure of the applicant-appellant to challenge the impugned award well within the period of limitation may have little substance, however, the petitioner has otherwise been able to show sufficient cause, therefore, the delay as occurred in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned. The question as raised by Mr. Gupta is left open to be agitated during the course of proceedings in the reference petition, if otherwise legally admissible to do so. Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel is also not averse to it of course in case any such question can be legally raised. 9. In view of what has been said hereinabove, in the present case the applicant appellant has been able to show sufficient cause warranting the condonation of delay as occurred in filing the main appeal. Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel is also not averse to it of course in case any such question can be legally raised. 9. In view of what has been said hereinabove, in the present case the applicant appellant has been able to show sufficient cause warranting the condonation of delay as occurred in filing the main appeal. Since learned trial Court has decided the reference petition in a haste and without adhering to the procedure as prescribed as well as without observing to bare minimum requirement of principle of natural justice, on merits also, prima facie there exists an arguable case in her favour. The application is, therefore, allowed. Consequently, the delay as occurred in filing the appeal is ordered to be condoned. The application stands disposed of.