Dismissed

Director, Interim Test Range,Chandipur v. Radhamani Das

Orissa HC22 Aug 2024LAA/68/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge of the High Court of Orissa rejected an application for condonation of delay in filing a memorandum of appeal and payment of court fee. The court held that the delay was not explained properly and the backlog was not justified, thus dismissing both IA No.253 and IA No.209 and the underlying appeal, while directing compliance of an earlier order.

What did the court decide?

IA No.253 of 2023, IA No.209 of 2019 and the Appeal dismissed; Appellant directed to act in terms of earlier order within three months.

Director, Interim Test Range,Chandipur Vs Radhamani Das — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

LAA No.68 of 2019

¶3

Director, Interim Test Range, …. Appellant Chandipur, Balasore

¶4

Mrs. J. Sahoo, CGC

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Radhamani Das (dead) …. Respondents Bijay Kumar Das and others

¶7

Mr. M.K. Panda, Advocate (For Respondent Nos.2, 3 & 5) Mr. D.K. Behera, ASC (For Respondent No.7)

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

¶9

ORDER

¶10

22.08.2024

¶11

LAA No.68 of 2019 & I.A. No.209 of 2019 & I.A. No.253 of 2023

¶12

Order No.

¶13

06.

¶14

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶15

2. I.A. No.209 of 2019 has been filed for condonation of delay in presenting the Memorandum of Appeal, whereas I.A. No.253 of 2023 has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the court fee paid belatedly.

¶16

3. On perusal of record, it is ascertained that though the Memorandum of Appeal was presented on 27.09.2019, neither the court fee was paid nor any application was moved under section 149 CPC seeking time to deposit the court fee along with the Memorandum of Appeal. However, much thereafter i.e. on 28.09.2022, the Appellant deposited the deficit court fee without any application under section 149 CPC for acceptance of the same, paid

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

belatedly. As a result of which, the Office has pointed out that there is a delay of 1138 days, after deducting the statutory period of 90 days in terms of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

¶19

4. A common objection has been filed by the private Respondent Nos.2, 3 & 5 opposing to both the prayers for condonation of delay, relying on the division Bench judgment of this Court reported in AIR 1994 Orissa 90 (Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Sambaru Bariha) so also other judgments passed by the High Court of Madras and this Court in L.A.A. No.58 of 2019 (Director, Interim Test

¶20

Range, Chandipur, Balasore Vs. Basanti Rani Das and another) disposed of on 02.05.2024 and L.A.A. No.63 of 2019 (Director, Interim Test Range, Chandipur, Balasore Vs. Kamala Kanta Sethi and another) disposed of on 19.01.2024, enclosing the copies of the said order as Enclosure-B to the Objection.

¶21

5. Apart from the said orders, the order passed by this Court in L.A.A. No.113 of 2019 (Director, Interim Test Range, Chandipur Vs. Ganesh Ch. Behera and others) disposed of on 11.01.2023 has been annexed to the said Objection as Enclosure-A indicating in the objection that the present Appeal is squarely covered by the said order passed by this Court in Ganesh Ch. Behera (supra).

¶22

6. Since there is a reference to L.A.A. No.11 of 2020, in para-5 of the order passed in Ganesh Ch. Behera (supra), learned Counsel for the private Respondent Nos.2, 3 & 5 files photocopy of the said order dated 01.12.2021 passed in L.A.A. No.11 of 2020 (Director, Interim Test Range, Chandipur Vs. Ashok Senapati and others) and submits, on merit also this Appeal is squarely covered by the said

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

order passed in Ashok Senapati (supra). As the notification, purpose of acquisition of land, kisam of the land so also mouza of the suit land are same as of L.A.A. No.11 of 2020, the present Appeal is squarely covered by the order passed in Ashok Senapati (supra) and deserves to be dismissed with a direction to implement the impugned judgment within a stipulated period. .

¶25

7. However, in view of the delay in depositing the court fee, which has not been explained properly, so also division Bench judgment of this Court in Sambaru Bariha (supra), this Court is not inclined to condone the delay and accept the court fee paid belatedly.

¶26

8. Accordingly I.A. No.253 of 2023 stands dismissed. As a consequence thereof I.A. No.209 of 2019 for condonation of delay and the Appeal also stand dismissed.

¶27

9. The Appellant is directed to act in terms of the judgment dated 18.05.2019 passed in L.A. Misc. Case No.631 of 2014 (CIS No.74-2016) within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.

¶28

10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application, as per rules.

¶29

(S.K. MISHRA)

¶30

Kanhu

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Page 3 of 3

¶33

Digitally Signed Signed by: KANHU BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck. Date: 23-Aug-2024 18:23:28

Director, Interim Test Range,Chandipur v. Radhamani Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Director, Interim Test Range,Chandipur v. Radhamani 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

Jayanti Patnaik Vs Nic Ltd.

Mamata Rout Vs Project Director, Nh 203, Nhai, Bbsr.

Manoj Kumar Moharana Vs State of Odisha

Biju Pattnaik College of Plus Two Science and Technology, Jajpur Vs Employees State Insurance Corp., Bbsr

M/S. New Biriyani Centre Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation

Sanjukta Beuria Vs State of Odisha