Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1653 (JHR)

Badal Chandra Mahato v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-07-27

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

body2018
JUDGMENT ORDER Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - Counsel for the petitioners submits that vide the impugned orders, the cases under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have been dismissed for default on 14.09.2004, 09.08.2004 and 17.07.2004 in connection with L.A. Case Nos. 67 of 1991, L.A. Case No. 68 of 1991 and L.A. Case No. 69 of 1991 respectively all passed by the learned Sub-Judge II at Saraikella. 2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that one opportunity may be granted to these petitioners who are poor displaced persons. By referring to paragraph no. 6 of the writ petition he submits that the petitioner no. 3 who was looking after the said cases had fell ill and suffered from jaundice etc. and thereafter, he did not appear and the learned Advocate who was engaged in the cases also did not appear. Consequently, by the impugned orders the awards passed under section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were confirmed. He reiterates that the petitioners are poor displaced persons and will be highly prejudiced if the impugned orders are not set-aside. 3. Considering the fact that these are old cases, counsel for the petitioners submits that they are ready to forgo the claim of statutory interest in connection with the additional compensation, if any, which may be assessed and granted to the petitioners once the cases are restored and learned Court below is directed to decide the case on merits after giving opportunity to the petitioners to place their case on merits. He submits that in order to ensure that no prejudice is caused to the respondents on account of delay caused due to the acts/omissions of the petitioners, he is ready and willing to forgo the claim of statutory interest which the petitioners may be entitled on account of any further relief which may be granted to the petitioners by the Court below. 4. Counsel for the respondents submits that there has been gross negligence on the part of the petitioners in pursuing their cases and accordingly, he submits that the impugned orders may not be set-aside. 5. 4. Counsel for the respondents submits that there has been gross negligence on the part of the petitioners in pursuing their cases and accordingly, he submits that the impugned orders may not be set-aside. 5. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submission made by the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are ready to forgo the claim of statutory interest on the additional amount which may be awarded to the petitioners, if any, pursuant to any order that may be passed on merits in the aforesaid three cases, this Court is inclined to set-aside the impugned orders and direct the petitioners to appear before the learned court below within a period of two months from today and in turn, the learned court below i.e. learned Sub-Judge II at Saraikella is directed to take up the cases and decide the same in accordance with law. This Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met by the aforesaid order as the respondents will not suffer on account of delay in disposal of cases which has occurred due to acts/omissions by the petitioners and/or their counsel as the counsel for the petitioners has given up the claims of the petitioners on account of statutory interest which they may be found payable pursuant to the order, if any, to be passed by the learned court below upon this order of remand. 6. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. It is made clear that as per the undertaking given by the counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners will not be entitled to any claim on account of statutory interest on the additional amount, if any , which they may be found payable pursuant to the order to be passed by the learned court below upon this order of remand.