Allowed

L.a.Collector v. Debendra Ku.Das

Orissa HC12 Jan 2016LAA/64/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court, noting an apparent error by the lower civil judge in adjudicating a land acquisition reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, condoned a four-year, ninety-day delay in filing the appeal. The judgment referred to precedents but distinguished a specific ruling on official procedure, ultimately deciding that the delay should be construed liberally to serve the ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

The delay in filing the appeal was condoned; the appellant was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 1,500/- to the Library Funds of the Odisha High Court Bar Association within two weeks.

7. 12.01.2016 This is an application for condonation of delay. Stamp Reporter has pointed out delay of four years 90 days in filing the present appeal. Heard Mr.S.Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-a ppellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.

Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the appellant-Stat e submits that there is some delay in filing the appeal which occurred due to observance of th e official procedure. However, the delay caused in filing the appeal should not be attributed to the present appellant as he has no role in it. Moreover, the market price of the land acqui red has been fixed without any basis. There is no evidence to award compensation of Rs.12,00 0/- per decimal of land. Thus, she submits that in view of the decision in the case of Ram Nat h Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu and others v- Gobardhan Sao and others, AIR 2002 SC 1201, the delay shou ld not stand on the way in disposal of the appeal on merit, if the substantial question of fac t and law is to be decided in the appeal. The delay in such matters should be considered liber ally and no pedantic approach should be made while considering the question of limitation. Hen ce, he prays for condonation of delay.

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that law has been well-settled in the case of Postmaster General and others Vs. Living Media India Limi ted and another, reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563 to the effect that the time consumed by observin g official procedure in filing the appeal cannot be a good ground to condone the delay. Howe ver, learned counsel for the respondents submits that to render substantial justice, the delay should be condoned, if the appeal involves question of fact and law to be decided. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the misc. case.

Considering the pleadings and submissions of the learned counsel for the respective part ies, this Court feels that there is an apparent error committed by the learned Civil Judge whi le adjudicating the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In that vie w of the matter, this Court refrains from taking pedantic approach for condonation of delay.

On consideration of the submissions made by Mr.Mishra, learned Additio nal Standing counsel and the grounds taken in the objection, this Court feels it to be a fit c ase where delay should be construed liberally so as to condone the delay for the ends of just ice. In that view of the matter, the delay in filed the appeal is condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,500/- (rupees one thousand five hundred) only to the Library Funds of the Oris sa High Court Bar Association within two weeks.

L.a.Collector v. Debendra Ku.Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L.a.Collector v. Debendra Ku.Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeep Agarwal Vs Ajay Ku.Goyal

Land Acquisition Collector Vs Bhagarathi Mali

Bhusan Rout Vs Harihar Rout

Sk.Usman Vs Zarina Begum

Nirakara Sabato Vs Gangadhar Padhi

Nilap Jagabandhu Vs Satyasahi Edun.C.Tru