TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1567X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Limited (ONGC) sometime in 2000, the concerned Deputy Collector invoked the provisions of Section 35(2) of the Act and handed over possession of the appellant s land measuring 17,165 sq. meters to ONGC for drilling and extraction of oil. After about two years, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award for payment of rental compensation at the rate of Rs.3.75 per sq. meter per annum. The appellant did not feel satisfied and filed an application under Section 18 for determination of the amount of compensation by the Court. Thereupon, the Collector made a reference which was registered as LAR No.97/2007. In the claim petition filed by him, the appellant prayed for award of market rent at the rate of Rs.20 per sq. meter. This was contested by the respondents, who pleaded that the determination made by the Land Acquisition Officer was just and proper. After analyzing the evidence produced by the parties, the Reference Court decided the reference vide judgment dated 30.11.2007 and held that the landowner is entitled to rental compensation at the rate of Rs.12.70 per sq. meter per annum. The respondents neither challenged the judgment of the Reference Court by filing an appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justice. 3. It will be seen from the above that the delay caused in filing the appeal has occasioned because the applicant had to get the approval from the competent authorities of the applicant looking to the stakes and legal issues involved in the matter. The papers were required to be sent to the competent authority of the applicant for its approval and this process took some time and hence the delay has been caused in filing the appeal. Applicant submits that the delay caused in filing the aforesaid appeal deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice. On 24.10.2011, Shri S.G. Bhatt (Sanatkumar Ganpatram Bhatt), who gave his designation in the subsequent affidavit as Senior Human Resource Executive in the LAQ Section of ONGC, filed an affidavit to explain the delay. Shri Bhatt blamed the Advocate Shri C.M. Raval by stating that he did not give information about the judgment of the Reference Court and the Corporation did not know about the judgment till a copy thereof was made available by the appellant s Advocate Shri V.D. Trivedi on 18.4.2011. This is evinced paragraphs 2 and 3 of the affidavit, which read as under: 2. I state that judgment and award in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the material on record, we find substance in the contention of the learned advocate for the respondent that primafacie the appellants have made out a deliberate false statement that prior to the issue of notice they had no knowledge of the impugned award. In such circumstances, we direct the appellants to affirm supplementary affidavit dealing with Annexure-R1 and R2 of the affidavit-in-reply. Such affidavit be given within a week from today. (emphasis supplied) In compliance of the direction given by the High Court, Sanatkumar Ganpatram Bhatt filed affidavit dated NIL, December, 2011. This time, he made complete somersault and blamed a Class III employee, namely, Mr. Kalpesh R. Shah for the delay by stating that he was looking after rental compensation matters and through inadvertence he did not see the copy of judgment dated 30.11.2007 annexed with the claimant s letter. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the second affidavit of Shri Bhatt read as under: 3. I say and submit that letters of the claimant dated 16 July 2008 and marked as inward no.1233. A copy of inward register is annexed here to and market as Ann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y to grant approval for preferring an appeal together with the submissions of the applicants for preferring the application for condonation of delay. That the explanation given in the further affidavit is false and incorrect and the same are made with a view to escape from the prosecution. On the contrary, such explanation should have been stated in the application for condonation of delay and not in the further affidavit for the simple reason that a notice was sent by the Advocate of the applicants on 16.7.2008 and this notice was accompanied by copy of the award, copy of the judgment and the other relevant papers. In response of this, no mistake could have been committed by the applicant ONGC of the type that is indicated in the further affidavit for the purpose of escaping from the prosecution. This is so because pursuant to the notice given by the Advocate of the claimants in 2008, the Collector had sent a letter on 5.7.2008 addressed to the General Manager, ONGC, Chandkheda. [See page No. 18 of the compilation]. The Collector has indicated in his letter, pursuant to the notice that was sent by the claimant that proper actions were required to be taken for the purpose of comput ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... avit. After taking into consideration the fact that the appellant is a Corporation and the litigations are filed on the basis of information received from different departments of the said Corporation, we are satisfied that there was some communication gap while giving instruction to the learned advocate for preferring these applications for condonation of delay. Although Mr. Patel appearing on behalf of the claimantsrespondents strenuously contended before us by relying upon the decision of the Supreme court in the case of Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 that we should follow the principle laid down in the said decision, after going through the said decision, we find that in the said case the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that there was deliberate false statement made in the said application for condonation of delay. In the case before us, we have already indicated that due to communication gap wrong statement was made in the original applications, which has been subsequently explained by way of supplementary affidavit. We are, therefore, not prepared to treat the same as a ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are empowered to condone the delay provided that sufficient cause is shown by the applicant for not availing the remedy within the prescribed period of limitation. The expression sufficient cause used in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and other statutes is elastic enough to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which serve the ends of justice. No hard and fast rule has been or can be laid down for deciding the applications for condonation of delay but over the years this Court has advocated that a liberal approach should be adopted in such matters so that substantive rights of the parties are not defeated merely because of delay. In C.A. Nos. 2970-2971 of 2012 - Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, this Court noticed the propositions laid down in Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361; Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107, P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala (1997) 7 SCC 556, N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1988) 7 SCC 123, Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil (2001) 9 SCC 106, State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO (2005) 3 SCC 752 and observed: What needs to be emphasised is that eve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t entitled, in any fraudulent manner. One should not forget the basic fact that what is acquired is not the land but the livelihood of the landlosers. These public interest parameters ought to be kept in mind by the courts while exercising the discretion dealing with the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Dragging the landlosers to courts of law years after the termination of legal proceedings would not serve any public interest. Settled rights cannot be lightly interfered with by condoning inordinate delay without there being any proper explanation of such delay on the ground of involvement of public revenue. It serves no public interest. It is true that when the State and its instrumentalities are the applicants seeking condonation of delay they may be entitled to certain amount of latitude but the law of limitation is same for citizen and for governmental authorities. The Limitation Act does not provide for a different period to the Government in filing appeals or applications as such. It would be a different matter where the Government makes out a case where public interest was shown to have suffered owing to acts of fraud or collusion on the part of it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n passing of the ex parte decrees. In our view, the above statement contained in Para 1 of the application is not only incorrect but is ex facie false and the High Court committed grave error by condoning more than four years delay in filing of appeal ignoring the judicially accepted parameters for exercise of discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. (emphasis supplied) In the light of the propositions laid down in the aforementioned judgments, we shall now consider whether the High Court had rightly condoned more than three years and four months delay in the filing of appeal by the respondents against the judgment of the Reference Court. A reading of the impugned order amply supports the argument of the learned senior counsel for the appellant that the Division Bench of the High Court condoned the delay without even considering the explanation given by the respondents and the affidavits and the documents filed by the parties. What has surprised us is that the High Court did not advert to the contents of the application filed by the respondents for condonation of delay, four affidavits filed by the parties and order dated 29.11.2011 and decided the prayer fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
