Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1595 (GAU)

James Thangliana v. District Collector, Aizawl

2018-11-09

NELSON SAILO

body2018
JUDGMENT : Nelson Sailo, J. This order will disposed of I.A(C) No. 69/2018, I.A(C) No. 71/2018 and I.A(C) No. 72/2018. Heard Mr. A. R. Malhotra, the learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Rosangzuala Ralte, the learned Government Advocate, who appears for the State respondents in I.A(C) No. 71/2018 and I.A(C) No. 72/2018. I have also heard Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, the learned Government Advocate, who appears for the State respondents in I.A(C) No. 69/2018. 2. By filing these applications, the applicants seek condonation of 331, 349 and 333 days delay respectively in filing the connected L.A Appeals. By referring I.A(C) No. 69/2018, the learned counsel, Mr. A.R. Malhotra submits that the Reference Court by the impugned Judgment & Order dated 03.05.2017 directed the respondent No. 1 to reassess the market value of the land belonging to the petitioners @ Rs. 58 per square feet alongwith 30% as solatium under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act) and interest @ 12% per annum on the market value of the land under Section 23(1-A) of the same Act. Further, interest in terms of Section 28 and Section 34 of the L.A. Act was also directed to be paid to the petitioners. Pursuant to the said impugned Judgment & Order, the amount as was assessed was deposited and disbursed to the applicants. The counsels for the applicants after analyzing the case of the applicants, recommended filing of an appeal against the impugned Judgment & Order dated 03.05.2017. However, as the counsels did not frequently take up cases in the High Court, they advised the applicants to approach another lawyer. A certified copy of the Judgment & Order was applied for on 29.05.2018 and the same was furnished on 08.06.2018. Thereafter, the applicants approached the present lawyer, who took 20 days time to study and drafted the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was ready for filing with a delay of 331 days. 3. By referring to I.A.(C) No. 71/2018, Mr. A.R. Malhotra, the learned counsel submits that after the learned Reference Court vide Judgment & Order dated 03.05.2017 disposed the Reference, the District Collector made the assessment and thereafter, the amount of compensation was sanctioned and paid to the applicants by the respondents. However, the applicants were advised by their lawyers that an appeal can be preferred for enhancement of the market value of the land. However, the applicants were advised by their lawyers that an appeal can be preferred for enhancement of the market value of the land. But, as the counsels did not frequently appear in the High Court, they advised the applicants to approach another lawyer. Their lawyer therefore, applied for a certified copy of the impugned Judgment & Order on 29.05.2018, which was furnished on 08.06.2018. With the certified copy of the impugned Judgment & Order, the applicants approached their present lawyer, who took about 17 days time to study the case and finalize the appeal. Hence, a delay of 349 days arose in filing the connected appeal. 4. In respect of I.A.(C) No. 72/2018, the learned counsel, Mr. A.R. Malhotra submits that after the applicants received the compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court, the applicants also on being advised by their lawyer that an appeal seeking enhancement of the market value of the land could be filed, they too decided to file an appeal. Since their lawyer did not frequently visit the High Court, he advised the applicants to engage another lawyer. However, their lawyer applied for a certified copy of the impugned Judgment & Order dated 19.05.2017 on 29.05.2018 and thereafter, the same was furnished on 08.06.2018. The applicants then approached their present lawyer, who took 17 days time to study the case and thereafter, drafted and finalized the appeal. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, the learned counsel submits that in the process, there arose delay of 333 days in filing the connected appeal. 5. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, the learned counsel submits that there is no intentional or willful negligence on the part of the applicants in filing the appeals belatedly and that the delay was due to inadvertence and reasons beyond their control. He submits that no prejudice will be caused to the respondents if the delay in filing the connected appeal is condoned. He further submits that there are other appeals arising out of the same award i.e., Award No. 1/2013 pending before this Court. The appeals pending before this Court are L.A. Appeal No. 4/2018, L.A. Appeal No. 5/2018 and L.A. Appeal No. 6/2018. He therefore submits that since the present appeals, which are belatedly filed arise out of the same award made by the Collector, the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. The appeals pending before this Court are L.A. Appeal No. 4/2018, L.A. Appeal No. 5/2018 and L.A. Appeal No. 6/2018. He therefore submits that since the present appeals, which are belatedly filed arise out of the same award made by the Collector, the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. He also submits that for condoning the delay in filing the connected appeals, Court may also impose any such conditions, as may be found to be appropriate. The learned counsel in support of his submission has relied upon the following decisions of the Apex Court:- (i) S. Ganesharaju & Anr Vs Narasamma & Ors, (2013) 11 SCC 341 (ii) Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr Vs Mst. Katiji & Ors, (1987) 2 SCC 107 and (iii) Government Pre-University College & Anr Vs Jambu Kumar Mutha, (2014) 16 SCC 370 . 6. By referring to Mst. Katiji & Ors (Supra), Mr. A.R. Malhotra submits that the Apex Court has held that the legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963, in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on merits. Also by referring to Jambu Kumar Mutha (Supra), he submits that the Apex Court considering the fact that a similar appeal against the very same judgment and decree was pending before the High Court, the High Court ought to have taken a more pragmatic view of the matter and condoned the delay in filing the appeal on such terms, as it was considered to be appropriate. With that view, the Apex Court condoned the delay. Further, by referring to S. Ganesharaju & Anr (Supra), he also submits that as held by the Apex Court, sufficient cause in explaining the delay is to be considered by the Court in exercise of its discretion to come to a conclusion that the circumstances exists establishing sufficient cause. Thus, under the circumstance as explained in the applications, Court may exercise its discretion and condone the delay in filing the connected appeals. 7. Mr. Rosangzuala Ralte, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents submits that the applicants have only approached this Court belatedly and without proper explanation. Thus, under the circumstance as explained in the applications, Court may exercise its discretion and condone the delay in filing the connected appeals. 7. Mr. Rosangzuala Ralte, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents submits that the applicants have only approached this Court belatedly and without proper explanation. By referring to the written objection filed by the respondents, he submits that the impugned Judgment & Order of the learned Reference Court was not only accepted by the applicants, but the amount of compensation that was computed and sanctioned by the respondent authority concerned was duly accepted by the applicants without any protest. The applicants have not given any explanation as to what prevent them from filing an appeal before receiving the compensation amount which was disbursed in the early part of the year 2018. That pendency of other appeals arising out of the same award passed by the Collector is no ground for condoning the delay. 8. Likewise, Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, the learned Government Advocate submits that the applicants have not shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The amount of compensation as was directed to be paid to the applicants have already been disbursed and therefore, the applicants cannot unsettle the settled position by filing belated appeals. The Court in considering the applications for condonation of delay will also have to take into account the rights that have already accrued to the respondents after satisfying the compensation, as was awarded. Since the applicants have duly received the compensation in terms of the Judgment & Order rendered by the learned Reference Court, no further consideration for enhancement of the compensation by way of an appeal which was filed with inordinate delay is called for, after all public money is involved which in no way can be utilized for, in reaching certain individuals. She thus submits that under the facts and circumstance, the applications may be dismissed. 9. Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, the learned Government Advocate in support of her submission has relied upon Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors, (2013) 12 SCC 649 . She submits that in that case, the Apex Court by referring to a catena of other decisions observed that the law of limitation is a substantive law and has definite consequences on the right and obligation of a party to arise. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors, (2013) 12 SCC 649 . She submits that in that case, the Apex Court by referring to a catena of other decisions observed that the law of limitation is a substantive law and has definite consequences on the right and obligation of a party to arise. Such principles should be adhered to and applied appropriately depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case. Once a valuable right has accrued in favour of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both the parties equally. 10. Mr. Rosangzuala Ralte, the learned Government Advocate has also relied upon the following decisions of the Apex Court:- (i) Basawaraj & Anr Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81 (ii) Brijesh Kumar & Ors Vs State of Haryana & Ors, (2014) 11 SCC 351 11. By referring to Basawaraj & Anr (Supra), he submits that the Apex Court held that where a case has been presented beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain as to what was the sufficient cause which prevented him to approach the Court within limitation. If the applicant is found to be negligent, there can be no justification for condoning the delay even by imposing a condition. By referring to Brijesh Kumar & Ors (Supra), he further submits that the Apex Court has also held that if some person has obtained relief by approaching the Court in time or immediately after the cause of action arose, other persons by approaching the Court at a belated stage cannot claim similar relief. In short, the benefit of the order passed in favour of diligent persons cannot be extended to those who came in late. He thus submits that in the given facts and circumstances, since sufficient cause has not been shown by the applicants in filing the appeals belatedly, delay may not be condoned and the applications should be dismissed. 12. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. 13. He thus submits that in the given facts and circumstances, since sufficient cause has not been shown by the applicants in filing the appeals belatedly, delay may not be condoned and the applications should be dismissed. 12. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. 13. A perusal of the applications filed by the applicants would go to show that the learned Reference Court had passed the impugned Judgment & Order on 03.05.2017 in respect of I.A.(C) No. 69/2018 and I.A.(C) No. 71/2018. As for I.A.(C) No. 72/2018, the impugned Judgment & Order was passed on 19.05.2017. Pursuant to the direction made by the learned Reference Court, the District Collector made necessary assessment and calculation of the amount of compensation entitled to the applicants and pursuant to which, the amount awarded was sanctioned and disbursed to the applicants in the early part of this year i.e., 2018. Admittedly after receiving the amount of compensation, a certified copy of the impugned Judgments & Orders were applied on 29.05.2018 after the applicants contemplated to file an appeal. Thereafter, I.A.(C) No. 69/2018 alongwith the appeal was filed on 28.06.2018 and the other two interlocutory applications alongwith the appeals were filed on 16.07.2018. The reasons cited by the applicants in all the three applications is that since the counsels for the applicants before the Lower Court did not frequently take up cases in the High Court, they were advised to approach another Lawyer whereafter, a certified copy of the Judgment & Order of the Reference Court was applied for on 29.05.2018. The admitted fact is that the decision to file an appeal was taken by the applicants only after the compensation in terms of the Judgment & Order of the Reference Court were satisfied by the respondent authorities. Besides the above explanation, the petitioners have not cited any other reason for the delay in filing the connected appeals. 14. The admitted fact is that the decision to file an appeal was taken by the applicants only after the compensation in terms of the Judgment & Order of the Reference Court were satisfied by the respondent authorities. Besides the above explanation, the petitioners have not cited any other reason for the delay in filing the connected appeals. 14. It may be noticed that the Apex Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee (Supra) by appreciating various decisions of the Apex Court itself on the law of limitation adopted the ratio laid down in Balwant Singh (Dead) Vs Jagdish Singh& Ors, (2010) 8 SCC 685 , wherein it was held that the law of limitation is a substantive law and has definite consequences on the right and obligation of a party to agitate his grievance. Once a valuable right has accrued in favour of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both the parties equally. 15. In the case of Basawaraj & Anr (Supra), the Apex Court held that the expression 'sufficient cause' should be given a liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done, so long as negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides cannot be imputed to the party concerned. Whether or not sufficient cause has been furnished, can be decided on the facts of a particular case. Further, in a case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time, condoning the delay without any justification, by putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature. Insofar as, the stand taken by the learned counsel for the applicants that since similar appeals arising out of the same award made by the Collector is pending, the delay should be condoned, it may be noticed that the Apex Court in Brijesh Kumar & Ors (Supra) has held that the benefit derived by a diligent person on account of approaching the Court immediately or after the cause of action had arisen cannot be taken advantage of by a person who has approached the Court at a belated stage. Therefore, the stand taken is found not to be persuasive. 16. There is no argument to the fact that a just and fair approach is to be taken while considering condonation of delay but Court cannot be oblivious of the fact, as to whether the party concerned has been negligent and callous in prosecuting the matter. In the present case, upon considering the attitude of applicants, it cannot be said that the applicants have been diligently pursuing their case. The thought of filing an appeal apparently only occurred to them after they duly received their share of compensation in terms of the Judgment & Order rendered by the learned Reference Court. 17. In that view of the matter, I do not find any reasonable explanation, let alone sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the connected appeals. In the result, the applications are found to be without merit and the same are accordingly dismissed.