Himachal Pradesh High Court
Shri Shyam Lal Sharma vs The Collector Land Acquisition And Anr on 8 August, 2019
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
SHIMLA
RFA No. 249 of 2019
.
Date of decision: 08.08.2019
Shri Shyam Lal Sharma ... ...Appellant
Versus
The Collector Land Acquisition and Anr. ... ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Sandeep Sharma,Judge.
Whether approved for reporting ?1
For the Appellant : Mr. B.L. Soni, Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr.Sanjeev Sood and Mr. Sudhir
r Bhatnagar, Additional Advocates
General and Mr.Kunal Thakur, Deputy
Advocate General.
Sandeep Sharma,J.
CMP(M) No. 665 of 2019.
Heard.
By way of instant application, prayer has been made on behalf of the applicant for condonation of delay in maintaining the accompanying appeal. The non-
applicants/respondents, by way of filing reply to the application, have opposed the prayer made on behalf of the applicant for condonation of delay on the ground that delay in maintaining the accompanying appeal has not been explained properly.
1Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 01:57:24 :::HCHP 22. Hon'ble Apex Court in Dhiraj Singh (Dead) through Legal Representatives and Others vs. State of .
Haryana and Others, (2014)14 SCC 127, while dealing with the land acquisition matters, has categorically held that approach of the Court, while condoning the delay in filing the appeal, should be pragmatic and not pedantic. Court has further held that the equities can be balanced by denying the interest to the appellants for the period for which they did not approach the Court. The substantive rights of the appellant should not be allowed to be defeated on technical grounds by taking hyper technical view of self-imposed limitation. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"16. The principles regarding condonation of delay particularly in land acquisition matters, have been enunciated in Collector (LA) v. Katiji, (1987)2 SCC 107, wherein it is stated in para 3 as under: (SCC p.108) "(3). The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice--that being the life-
purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other Courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that:-
1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 01:57:24 :::HCHP 3
2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be .
decided on merits after hearing the parties.
3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.
4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.
5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. r A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.
6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so."
(emphasis in original)
17. The aforesaid judgment was followed by this Court in DDA vs. Bhola Nath Sharma, (2011)2 SCC 54, which was also a matter concerning land acquisition.
18. We, accordingly, allow these appeals. Impugned orders of the High Court are set aside. Delay in filing the LPAs is condoned. It is held that the appellants shall be entitled to enhanced compensation @ Rs.200 per square yard.
However, for the period of delay in approaching the High Court by way of LPAs, in all these cases, no interest should be paid to them. Compensation shall be worked out accordingly and paid to the appellants within a period of three months from today."
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 01:57:24 :::HCHP 43. In the aforesaid judgment Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated that when substantial justice and technical .
considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.
4. The aforesaid view has further been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in K. Subbaraydu and Others vs. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), (2017)12 SCC
840.
5. In the case at hand, the applicant-appellant has fairly stated that he was unable to file the appeal well within time on account of his old age, ill-health, forgetfulness, not aware of the legal intricacies and non-availability of funds for engaging counsel etc., but subsequently, factum with regard to enhancement of compensation to the similar situate persons came to his knowledge and, as such, he arranged money and filed appeal without any further delay.
6. In the case at hand, if delay is not condoned, great prejudice would be caused to the applicant. Applicant has certainly not gained anything by not filing the appeal within prescribed period of limitation, rather, in the event of dismissal of his appeal on the ground of delay, he would loose opportunity to get the compensation enhanced by approaching this Court in ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 01:57:24 :::HCHP 5 the appropriate proceedings, laying therein challenge to the award passed by the reference Court.
.
7. Consequently, in view of aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as explanation rendered in the application, this Court is convinced and satisfied that delay in maintaining the accompanying appeal deserves to be condoned.
This application is accordingly allowed. The delay of 2 years 9 months and 05 days in maintaining the appeal, which has sufficiently been explained, is condoned in the interest of justice. The application is disposed of.
8. Appeal be registered.
RFA No.249 of 20199. By way of aforesaid appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), challenge has been laid to award dated 01.04.2016 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kullu in various Land Reference petitions as described in the award.
10. Undisputedly, the suit land belonging to claimant(s), situate in Phati Diyar, Kothi Kotkandi, Tehsil and District Kullu came to be acquired for public purpose; namely;
construction of "Bagar Nala-Prohdhar-Shegalidhar-Mahasu Road" and acquisition proceedings commenced with the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act on 8.6.2005.
The Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'LAC') passed award ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 01:57:24 :::HCHP 6 No.1 of 2011, dated 22.1.2011. It is not in dispute that market value of acquired land came to be determined/assessed on .
different rates, classification/ category-wise, ranging from Rs.57,231/- to Rs.2,28,924/-per bigha.
11. Claimant, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by 'LAC', preferred reference petition under Section 18 of the Act, (being Reference Petition No.10 of 2015(2013) alongwith other connected petitions) before the learned Additional District Judge, Kullu, seeking therein enhancement of compensation, awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. Learned Additional District Judge, Kullu vide common judgment dated 01.04.2016, passed in above numbered reference petition, re-determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.14,666/- per biswa i.e. Rs.2,93,320/-
per bigha alongwith all statutory benefits.
12. State is not aggrieved of the impugned award or the findings returned therein.
13. The claimant, being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the aforesaid award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kullu, has approached this Court by way of above captioned appeal on a limited ground that the Reference Court ought to have applied the principle of increase of price at 10% on annual basis, which was not so done in the instant cases ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 01:57:24 :::HCHP 7 and the enhancement given is only for a period of one year, whereas, it ought to have been for at least seven years.
.
14. It is not in dispute before this Court that similar situate claimants, whose land also came to be acquired for construction of "Bagar Nala-Prohdhar-Shegalidhar-Mahasu Road" in the acquisition proceedings commenced with the publication of Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 8.6.2005, had filed land reference petitions before the learned Additional District Judge, Kullu, praying therein to enhance the compensation awarded by 'LAC' in award No.1 of 2011, dated 22.1.2011. As has been noticed above, LAC, while passing said award, determined the market value of acquired land on different rates. However, fact remains that similar situated claimants, being dissatisfied with quantum of compensation awarded by LAC in Award No.1 of 2011, dated 22.1.2011, filed reference petitions under Section 18 of the Act and those reference petitions were clubbed and disposed of by a common award passed in Reference Petition No.10 of 2015 (2013), titled as: Shyam Lal Sharma vs. The Collector Land Acquisition, HPPWD, Mandi and Another, wherein the Reference Court re-determined the market value of entire land and enhanced the amount for different categories, as described in the said award.
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 01:57:24 :::HCHP 815. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid award passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kullu, the .
claimants, filed different appeals which came to be allowed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 01.08.2018 passed in RFA No.339 of 2015, titled: Om Prakash and Another vs. Land Acquisition Collector, H.P.P.W.D, Mandi & Others alongwith connected matters, by modifying the same to the extent that the market value of the acquired land is re-determined @ Rs.4,00,000/- per bigha, being the restricted claim, instead of Rs.14,666/- per biswa i.e. Rs.2,93,320/- per bigha.
16. It is seen that this Court, on re-appraisal of the given facts and circumstances as well as the evidence available on record, has re-determined the market value of the acquired land as Rs.4,00,000/- per bigha, being the restricted claim, instead of Rs.14,666/- per biswa i.e. Rs.2,93,320/- per bigha and enhanced the compensation alongwith consequential statutory benefits accordingly.
17. Mr.Sanjeev Sood, learned Additional Advocate General, representing the respondents-State, while fairly acknowledging the factum with regard to passing of judgment dated 01.08.2018 in "Om Prakash's case" (supra), conceded that claimant in the case at hand is also entitled to enhanced market value of acquired land at the rate of Rs.4,00,000/- per ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 01:57:24 :::HCHP 9 bigha, being the restricted claim, instead of Rs.14,666/- per biswa i.e. Rs.2,93,320/- per bigha alongwith consequential .
statutory benefits as per the said judgment.
18. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made hereinabove as well as fair stand adopted by Mr.Sanjeev Sood, learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondents-State, present appeal is allowed and it is ordered that directions contained in "Om Prakash's case" (supra), shall mutatis mutandis apply to the present case also.
19. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the entire award amount in the Registry of this Court within a period of eight weeks from today, if not already deposited.
20. Interim order, if any, is vacated. All the miscellaneous applications are disposed of.
August 8, 2019 (Sandeep Sharma)
(aks) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 01:57:24 :::HCHP