Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Asansol Durgapur Development ... vs Nilotpal Mukherjee & Ors on 19 March, 2015
Author: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
Bench: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
1
19.03.2015.
d.p.
F.A.T 359 of 2014
(CAN 7162 of 2014)
(CAN 7166 of 2014)
Asansol Durgapur Development Authority
-versus-
Nilotpal Mukherjee & Ors.
Mr. Raja Basu Chowdhury,
Mr. Rajorshi Dutta,
Mr. Sayantan Bose.
...For the Appellant.
Mr. Sardar Amjad Ali, Senior Advocate,
Mr. Masum Ali Sardar,
Mr. Avik Chaudhury.
...For the Respondent No.1.
Mr. Lalit Mohan Mahata, Mr. P. B. Mahata.
...For the State-Respondents.
The instant Appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. There was 395 days delay in filing the instant appeal.
The reason for the delay has been explained by the appellant in the instant application for condonation of delay.
It is stated therein that after the impugned judgment and/or decree was passed by the learned L.A Judge in the reference case under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on 18th March, 2013, the petitioner was given an impression that an appeal had been preferred against the said judgment and/or decree by the 2 respondent No.3. As such, no step was taken by the appellant herein for challenging the judgment and/or decree passed by the learned L.A Judge in the said reference case by the appellant herein. Subsequently, after receiving a copy of the execution proceeding being money execution case No.19 of 2013, the appellant started enquiring as to whether any appeal, in fact, was filed by the respondent No. 3 or not. In the mean time, another notice relating to money execution case being No.1 of 2014 instituted by one Priya Kumar Mukherjee was also served upon the appellant/petitioner. By the said execution case, judgment and/or decree dated 13th August, 2013 passed in L.A case No.1/32/23 of 2009/2007 was sought to be executed. Thereafter an appeal being FAT No.296 of 2014 was filed for challenging the judgment and/or decree passed by the L.A Judge on 30th August, 2013 in L.A Case No. 1/32/23 of 2009/2007 along with an application for condonation of delay. In course of holding conference with the Senior Counsel in connection with the said appeal it was detected that the judgment and/or decree passed in the said L.A case No. 1/32/23 of 2009/2007 was based completely on the findings recorded in the impugned judgment which was passed by the learned L.A Judge in the present proceeding. It is only at that point of time the appellant was advised to find out the status of the appeal filed by the respondent No.3 for challenging the impugned award passed in the present land acquisition proceeding. It is only thereafter the appellant contacted the office of the respondent No.3 for ascertaining the status of the said appeal and ultimately was surprised to note that no such appeal was filed by the said respondent No.3 for challenging the impugned award passed in the present proceeding. Thereafter the appellant took steps for filing the present appeal and the instant appeal was filed on 16th July, 2014.
3This is the explanation given by the appellant for such long delay of 395 days.
We are of the view that the explanation which is given for such long delay is not worthy of acceptance but still then we find that since delay in filing the other appeal being FAT 296 of 2014 has been condoned subject to payment of cost and the fate of the said appeal is also to some extent dependent upon the fate of this appeal, we feel that justice will be subserved if delay in filing this appeal is condoned subject to payment of costs. Such cost is imposed only for the reason that the claimant is neither allowed to enjoy his property nor was allowed to enjoy the compensation payable to him for acquiring his property for such a long time.
Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing this appeal subject to payment of cost of Rs.50,000/- by the appellant to the respondent/claimant No.1 within two weeks from date.
The application for condonation of delay thus, stands allowed.
The appeal will be registered on production of the receipts showing payment of such cost to the respondents, before the concerned department. Delay in payment of court fees is condoned in case the appeal is regularized.
Let the affidavits filed by the parties in connection with the application, be kept with the record.
(Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.) ( Samapti Chatterjee, J.)