State Vs Dukhabandhu Sahu — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

State Vs Dukhabandhu Sahu — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellant; appeal dismissed at the stage of admission. Registry directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Court below and the sole Respondent to ensure compliance of the judgment dated 18.08.2007 in L.A. Ref. No.86 of 2006 (respondent thereby retains adjudicated compensation with statutory benefits).

Issue for consideration

Resolution of the question of limitation arising from the 120-day delay in presenting the Memorandum of Appeal, which required service of notice on the sole Respondent pursuant to Misc. Case No.309 of 2008. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

The appeal stands dismissed for non-compliance of the orders dated 16.09.2015, 11.12.2015 and 24.02.2023, the appellant having persistently failed to take steps for issuance of notice to the sole Respondent on the limitation question.

Key takeaways

On perusal of the impugned judgment, this Court observed that sufficient reason had been assigned by the Court below for enhancing the compensation amounts adjudged therein.obiter¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Orissa High Court, Cuttack — LAA No.65 of 2008 (Order No.07 dated 02.01.2024; Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra): Appeal by the State of Orissa against judgment dated 18.08.2007 in L.A. Ref. No.86 of 2006, whereby the Court below adjudged enhanced compensation of Rs.40,000/- for the house, Rs.2,000/- for Gharabadi land and Rs.15,000/- for the trees, with statutory benefits under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and Section 28 of the L.A. Act. The Memorandum of Appeal was presented 120 days late; notice on the limitation question (Misc. Case No.309 of 2008) was repeatedly sought to be served but the State-Appellant failed to take the requisite steps despite orders dated 16.09.2015, 11.12.2015 and 24.02.2023, notice remaining unserved per the Office Note. Finding sufficient reason assigned by the Court below for the enhancement, the appeal was dismissed at the stage of admission for non-compliance of those orders, with the Registry directed to communicate the order to the Court below and the sole Respondent (Dukhabandhu Sahu) to secure compliance of the 2007 judgment.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

LAA No.65 of 2008

State of Orissa

Appellant

Mr. B. Panigrahi, ASC

-versus-

Dukhabandhu Sahu

…. Respondent

CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

Order No. 07.

ORDER 02.01.2024

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

This Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 18.08.2007 passed in L.A. Ref. No.86 of 2006 vide which the Court below held that the present Respondent is entitled to get the compensation of Rs.40,000/- for the house, Rs.2,000/- for Gharabadi land and Rs.15,000/- for the trees along with all statutory benefits in terms of Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and Section 28 of the L.A. Act.

Since there is a delay of 120 days in presenting the Memorandum of Appeal, vide order dated 16.07.2015 it was ordered to issue notice on the question of limitation in Misc. Case No.309 of 2008 with a direction to file the requisites by 21.07.2015. Pursuant to the said order, notice being issued to the sole Respondent, the same has returned unserved with a noting “not known”. Hence, vide order dated 16.09.2015, it was directed to take fresh steps for issuance of notice to the sole Respondent in his present correct address by R.P with AD within a week from the said date. But the State-Appellant didn’t comply the said order.

Page 1 of 2

Again vide order dated 11.12.2015 further two weeks’ time was granted to the State Appellant to take steps in terms of the order dated 16.09.2015. Still the State-Appellant did not take necessary steps in terms of the previous orders passed by the coordinate Bench.

Long thereafter, when the matter got listed on 24.02.2023, this Court directed to take necessary steps for issuance of notice to the soleRespondent by 10.03.2023 positively and it was ordered to list the matter under the heading “For Orders” immediately after service of notice on the sole-Respondent.

As per the Office Note, steps for issuance of notice to the soleRespondent on the question of limitation is yet to be taken.

Apart from that, on perusal of the impugned judgment, it is found that the sufficient reason has been assigned by the Court below to enhance the compensation amount as detailed above.

In view of the above, the appeal stands dismissed for noncompliance of orders dated 16.09.2015, 11.12.2015, so also dated 24.02.2023.

Since the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission, Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the court below so also to the sole-Respondent to ensure compliance of the judgment dated 18.08.2007 passed in L.A. Ref. No.86 of 2006.

(S.K. MISHRA)

JUDGE

Banita

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI Designation: SR. STENOGRAPHER Reason: AUTHENTICATION Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 03-Jan-2024 18:15:36

Page 2 of 2