Allahabad High Court
Late Rai Prem Chand And Anr. vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 2 November, 2017
Bench: Arun Tandon, Rajiv Joshi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?A.F.R. Court No. - 10 Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 297 of 2014 Appellant :- Late Rai Prem Chand And Anr. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- C.K. Parekh,Raunak Parekh Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
This appeal has been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the award of the Additional District Judge-III, District-Varanasi dated 23.11.1990 passed in reference case No. 289 of 1987. The stamp report has reported the appeal to be beyond time by 23 years 238 days, Application No. 343814 of 2014 has been filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 5 and Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, for condoning the delay in filing of the appeal. We proceed to consider the application for condonation of delay and for the purpose, it would be relevant to notice the following facts.
Reference giving rise to this appeal arising out of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 11th July, 1966 followed by notification dated 20.3.1968 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The issue of fair market value/compensation to be paid to recorded tenure holder came to be considered by the reference court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, vide award dated 23.11.1990.
Recorded tenure holder/claimants were not satisfied with the compensation so awarded. They filed review application before the reference Court. The review application was granted on 4.4.1991 and the compensation was enhanced.
We need not enter into the details of the enhanced compensation as it is not relevant at this stage. The State of Uttar Pradesh not being satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded under the main award as well as the enhance compensation as determined under the review order filed First Appeal Defective No. 245 of 1991 which was subsequently allotted regular number after the delay condonation application was granted and was registered as Appeal No. 648 of 1992. The appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh come up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court which judgement and order dated 14th October, 2014 partly allowed, the appeal filed by the State. The enhancement of the compensation in terms of the order passed on the review application was set aside. The High Court refused to interfere with the original award made in the reference proceedings. The State has accepted the order so made and has not chosen to challenge the same any further.
Therefore, so far as the State is concerned, the original award dated 23.11.1990 stands on record and has become final. However, against the part of the judgment and order of the Division Bench dated 14.10.2014, whereby the order passed on the review application has been set aside, the recorded tenure holders/claimants filed Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8282 of 2015. The Apex Court vide judment and order dated 4th July, 2017 refused to interfere with the order of the High Court dated 14th October, 2014, however, it granted liberty to the recorded tenure holders/claimants to file their appeals against the main award of the reference Court dated 23th November, 1990, with a further direction that in the event appeal is filed the delay in filing the same be considered in accordance with law and having regard to the specific provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, and the pendency of the present proceedings.
The relevant part of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reads as under:
"In the even the petitioner files an appeal the delay in filing the same will be considered in accordance with law having regard to the specific provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the pendency of the present proceedings."
The record reflects that the appellant had preferred an appeal before this Court on 17th October, 2014 itself against the award dated 23.11.1990.
From the facts noticed above, it shall be seen that there had been an order of the reference Court in favour of the appellant enhancing the compensation dated 4.4.1991 which continued in operation till the decision of appeal No. 648 of 1992 filed by the State by the High Court to be precise up to 14.10.2014. Within three days of the decision of the High Court the appellant had preferred the instant appeal to precise on 17th October, 2014. The appeal continued to remain pending before this Court and in the mean time, the Apex Court passed the order dated 4.7.2017 permitting the claimants/ recorded tenure holder to file their appeals against the main award and the issue of delay being examined in light of under Section 14 of the of the Limitation Act and the pendency of the said proceedings.
We are more than satisfied that the appellant before us had been pursing their remedy in right earnest. It cannot be said the appellant had been sleeping over their rights.
We must however, record are disapproval to the manner in which the appellant have avoided the payment of court fees on the date of presentation of the appeal. Although the appeal was filed within three days of the order of the High Court, but with a court fees of Rs. 5/- only on the memo of appeal. Report of the Stamp Reporter dated 17.10.2014 noticed a deficiency of court fees of Rs. 1,43,477.50 An application was filed asking for 6 months time to provide the requisite deficient court fees and the reason disclosed was that the calculation of the same in terms of the order dated 14.10.2014 would take some time.
In our opinion, the reasons so disclosed is flimsy as the amount of deficient court fees had been indicated in the report of the stamp reporter. If the appellants had any issue in that regard they had a right to approach the Taxing Officer under provisions of Chapter 14 of the Allahabad High Court Rules within a period of three weeks which they failed to do so. Therefore, in terms of the Rule 4 of Chapter 14, the report of the Stamp Reporter is deemed to have been accepted by the appellant. No further objection can be entertained in that regard such practice of avoiding payment of due to court fees in terms of the statutory provision is deprecated.
However, since the court fees has now been supplied which has been accepted by the Division Bench of this Court, we need not dilate on the said aspect of the matter any further.
In view of, what has been recorded hereinabove by us, we deem it fit an proper to condoned the delay of 23 years 238 days in filing of the instant appeal. Appeal be treated within time. The appellant may file his paper book within four weeks.
We direct that the appeal shall be listed in the 2nd week of January, 2018.
Order Date:- 2.11.2017/Akbar