The Special Land Acquisition Officer (Mhada) and Anr. Vs Bhavsar Construction Co.Ltd and Anr.

P.C.
	By		this	notice	of	motion,	the
appell	ants-a	pplicants		pray for	co	ndonation of	delay
in		filing	the	appeal against	the	judgment and	award
dated		16.	10.2003	passed by	the	learned Single	Judge
of		this	court	in Land	Acquisition	Reference No	.5 of
1999.	The	appeal suff	ers from th	e delay of 497
days.
2.		In	suppor	t of the	notice	of motion,	initially,
the		affidav	it wa	s filed by	one	Dattatraya	Sambhaji

¶18

:2:

¶19

Doifode	(the Special Land	Acquisition		Officer).
However,	the said affidavit was	found		inadequate
when the	matter came up before us o	n 4th	July,	2005.
On the	request made by the	learned		Assistant
Government	Pleader on that day, we	adjour	ned	the
matter	to enable the appellants-applic	ants to		file
additional	affidavit. Pursuant	thereto,		two
additional	affidavits have been	filed.		One
affidavit	is by Dattatraya Sambhaji	Doifode		(Special
Land	Acquisition Officer) who had	filed	the	earlier
affidavit	in support of the notice of	motion.		The

¶20

other affidavit is by Shrikant Dondiba Thite

¶21

(Assistant Controller of Rationing).

¶22

The two additional affidavits that have now been

¶23

filed, explain the delay thus-

¶24

The	application for certifi	ed	copy	of	the
judgment	and award dated 16th	October,	2003	was	made
on 18th	October, 2003 by	the	office	of	the
Government	Pleader. By the	comm	unication	dated	23rd
October,	2003 addressed by the	office	of	the	Special
Land	Acquisition Officer,	the	Contr	oller	of
Rationing	was asked as to	whether	an	appeal	was
required	to be filed. By	the	letter	dated	27th
October,	2003, the Controller	of	Rationing		desired
the	Special Land Acquisition	Officer	to	file	appeal

¶25

:3:

¶26

against	the judgment and award	dated 16th	October,
2003	and also sought opinion	from the Law	and
Judiciary	Department, Government	of Ma	harashtra.
Vide	letter dated 31st October,	2003, the offic	e of
the	Special Land Acquisition	Officer sought	opinion
from	the Law and Judiciary	Department. By	letter
dated	3rd November, 2003,	the office of	the
Government	Pleader was forwarded	with the	parawise
comments	by the office of	the Special	Land
Acquisition	Officer. The office	of the Go	vernment
Pleader	sought necessary sanctio	n and approval	from
the	Law and Judiciary Departme	nt vide their	letter
dated	12th November, 2003.	On 14th November,	2003,
the	office of the Government	Pleader sent	their
opinion	for filing an appeal	against the	impugned
judgment	and award. The	Law and	Judiciary
Department	issued necessary in	structions to file	an
appeal	by their letter dated	29th December,	2003.
Thereafter,	the office of the	Government Pleader	was
requested	to prepare the memorandum	of appeal by	the
office	of the Special Land	Acquisition Officer	vide
their le	tter dated 7th January, 20	04. The office	of
the S	pecial Land Acquisition Of	ficer also vide	their
letter	dated 7th January, 20	04 issued in	structions
to	the Controller of Rationing	to make payment	of
the	requisite court fee. By	the letter dated	3rd
February,	2004, the office of	the Special	Land

¶27

:4:

¶28

Acquisition Officer reminded Rationing to deposit the	the Controller of amount of compensation and
also requested the Government	Pleader to prepare the
draft memorandum of appeal.	The draft memorandum of
appeal was received on 6th	March, 2004 by the office
of the Special Land Ac	quisition Officer from the
office of the Government	Pleader. The draft
memorandum of appeal was	returned to the office of
the Government Pleader vide	letter dated 18th March,
2004 after approval and	the Controller of Rationing
was requested to forward	the necessary court fee.
The amount of	enhanced compensation of
Rs.2,06,51,941/- was deposited	in the court on 28th
April, 2004. It appears	that on 20th April, 2004
some correction was made	in the judgment and the
award dated 16th October,	2003 and for which the
opinion was sought from the	office of the Government
Pleader. Before filing the	appeal, as required by
the office of the Govern	ment Pleader, the office of
the Special Land Acquisiti	on Officer requested the
Controller of Rationing	to submit all necessary
documents. For that	purpose, the Controller of
Rationing prepared 10 sets	of documents as required
by the Government Pleader’s	office on 20th December,
2004 and handed over the s	ame to the office of the
Government Pleader alongwith	the maps and stamp
papers. On 3.2.2005,	the Controller of Rationing

¶29

:5:

¶30

received	letter	from	the	Government	Pl	eader’s	office
for	copies of	the	impugne	d judgment.		By	letter
dated	11.2.2005,	the	letter	was rec	eived	by	the
Controller	of	Ration	ing	from	the		Government
Pleader’s	office	rega	rding	payment	of		additional
court	fee.	The C	ontroller	of Ratio	ning	called	for
quotations	for	typing	work	and it	appears	that	on

¶31

12.5.2005, the typing work was complete and then the

¶32

appeal and the notice of motion were filed.

¶33

4. No affidavit has been filed by the	re	spondents
controverting the facts stated in the	two	affidavits
of Dattatraya Sambhaji Doiphode and Shri	kant	Dondiba
Thite. We find no justifiable reason	for	not
believing the statements made in	these	two
affidavits. The learned senior counsel	for	the
respondents, however, contended that in the	month	of
April, 2004, the draft memorandum of	appeal	was
ready and the court fee was also received	and	the
enhanced compensation was deposited and		therefore,
there was no impediment for the appellants	in	filing
the appeal at least in the month of April,	2004	or
immediately thereafter. He invited our	attention	to
Rules 877 and 878 of the High Court	Rules,	Original
Side and submitted that alongwith the m	emorandum	of
appeal, the certified copy of the judgment	was	not
required to be annexed and so also	the	other

¶34

:6:

¶35

documents and therefore, the delay thereafter is not

¶36

properly explained.

¶37

5.	We	are afraid, the	submis	sion of the	learned
senior	counsel	for the	res	pondents cannot	be
accepted.		The facts that	we	have stated	above
clearly	indicate	that there w	as	no want of	diligence
in	pursuing	the matter	by	the Special	Land
Acquisition		Officer as well	as	the Controller	of
Rationing		in filing the	appeal	against the	impugned
judgment	and	award. It	is	true that the	appeal
suffers	from	delay of 497	days	but that delay	is
sufficiently		explained by t	hese	two affidavits.	In
the	case	of Collector,	Land	Acquisition,	Anantnag
and a	nother	v. Mst.Katiji	and	others, 1987 SC	1353,
the	Supreme	Court laid d	own	the following	principles

¶38

for considering the application for condonation of

¶39

delay:-

¶40

"1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.

¶41

2.	Refusing to condone delay can	result in
a	meritorious matter being thrown	out at
the	very threshold and cause	of justice
being	defeated. As against this	when delay
is	condoned the highest that can	happen is
that a cau after heari	se would be decided on merits ng the parties.
3.	"Every day’s delay must be	explained"
does	not mean that a pedan	tic approach
should	be made. Why not	every hour’s
delay, must be a	every second’s delay? pplied in a rational common sense	The doctrine

¶42

:7:

¶43

pragmatic manner.

¶44

	4. When substantial just considerations are pitted	ice a	and gainst	technical each
	other, cause of s	ubstantia	l	justice
	deserves to be preferred for	the	other	side
	cannot claim to have injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.	vested	right	in
	5. There is no presumption	tat	delay	is
	occasioned deliberately, or on	ac	count	of
	culpable negligence, or on	acc	ount	of
	malafides. A litigant does benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.	not	stand	to
	6. It must be grasped	that	judiciary	is
	respected not on account of legalize injustice on technical because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so."	its	power grounds	to but
6.	The Apex Court while laying	down	the	principles
also	highlighted that on account of	an		impersonal
machinery	that the State is and	havi	ng	inherited
bureaucrati	c methodology, the delay	in	the	matters
of the Sta understand	te may not be very difficult to .

¶45

7.	As we have	already	indicated		above,	the	papers
moved	from various	officers	and		the	corr	espondence
ensued	between the	offices	of the		Sp	ecial	Land
Acquisiti	on Officer,	the Co	ntroller		of		Rationing,
the	office of the	Government	Pleader		and	the	Law
and	Judiciary Department	and it	was		for	that	reason
the	delay occurred.	The	enhanc	em	ent	of	the
compensa	tion in the	impugned	award	is	of	about	2

¶46

:8:

¶47

crores and the appeal deserves to be heard on

¶48

merits.
8.	As	a matter o	f fact,	we	are	informed	by	the
learned	senio	r counsel	for	the		respondents	that	the
enhanced		compensation	amou	nting		to	Rs.2,06,	51,941/-
that	was	deposited	by	the	app	ellants	have	been
withdrawn		by the		respo	ndents.		Thus,	the
respondents	must no	t have any serious objec	tion if
the appeal is	heard on	merits.
9.	We	are, thu	s, satis	fied	that	the	delay	in
filing the a order accord	ppeal de ingly.	serves to be condoned.	We
10. The not	ice of mo	tion stands disposed of.
11. Office	is directe	d to process the appeal	and
post it for a	dmission	as soon as numbered.

¶49

(R.M.LODHA, J.)

¶50

(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)

The Special Land Acquisition Officer (Mhada) and Anr. v. Bhavsar Construction Co.Ltd and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Special Land Acquisition Officer (Mhada) and Anr. v. Bhavsar Construction Co.Ltd and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs Hindustan Lever Research Centre Employees Union and Ors.

Messrs United Biotech Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Schering Corporation and Anr.

Prashant Surendra Tanna Vs Sicom Ltd.

M/S.Sharan Brothers Agencies and Anr. Vs M/S. Ramchand Silk Mills and Anr.

Nagrik Sahayya Kendra and Anr. Vs Sanjay B. Barge

oil natural gas corporation Ltd. Vs ongc genral kamgar sanghtana and Ors.