Karnataka High Court
Union Of India vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 14 October, 2024
Author: M.G.S.Kamal
Bench: M.G.S.Kamal
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7638
MSA No. 1026 of 2013
C/W MSA No. 1022 of 2013
MSA No. 1023 of 2013
AND 5 OTHERS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
MISCL SECOND APPEAL NO. 1026 OF 2013 (LA)
C/W
MISCL SECOND APPEAL NO. 1022 OF 2013 ,
MISCL SECOND APPEAL NO. 1023 OF 2013 ,
MISCL SECOND APPEAL NO. 1024 OF 2013 ,
MISCL SECOND APPEAL NO. 1025 OF 2013 ,
MSA CROSS OBJ NO. 200001 OF 2015 ,
MSA CROSS OBJ NO. 200002 OF 2015 ,
MSA CROSS OBJ NO. 200003 OF 2023
IN MSA.NO.1026/2013:
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by
SHIVALEELA UNION OF INDIA,
DATTATRAYA UDAGI
Location: HIGH THROUGH DIVISIONAL ENGINEER,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAYS, WADI,
TQ. CHITTAPUR, DIST. GULBARGA,
NOW REPRESENTED BY
DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
CONSTRUCTIONS-III,
SECUNDRABAD- 500 071,
ANDHRA PRADESH.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7638
MSA No. 1026 of 2013
C/W MSA No. 1022 of 2013
MSA No. 1023 of 2013
AND 5 OTHERS
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH THE ASST. COMMISSIONER
AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
SEDAM-585 222.
2. MAHADEVAPPA S/O CHANDRAPPA,
THROUGH HIS LR
SRIMANTH S/O MAHADEVAPPA,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O K. NAGAON, TQ. CHITTAPUR,
DIST. GULBARGA-585 103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI A. M. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF LA ACT
PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.02.2012 IN LACA
NO.37/2010 PASSED BY LEANRED III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE, GULBARGA AND CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 18.03.1998 PASSED IN LAC NO.508/1994 BY THE
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN), GULBARGA DATED
18.03.1998 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MSA NO. 1022/2013:
BETWEEN:
UNION OF INDIA,
THROUGH DIVISIONAL ENGINEER,
SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAYS, WADI,
TQ. CHITTAPUR, DIST. GULBARGA.
NOW REPRESENTED BY
DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
CONSTRUCTIONS-III,
SECUNDRABAD-500 071,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7638
MSA No. 1026 of 2013
C/W MSA No. 1022 of 2013
MSA No. 1023 of 2013
AND 5 OTHERS
ANDHRA PRADESH.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH THE ASST. COMMISSIONER AND
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
SEDAM-585 222.
2. SUBHASCHANDRA S/O MALLESHAPPA,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O K. NAGAON, TQ. CHITTAPUR,
DIST. GULBARGA-585 103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI S. A. KAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) LA ACT,
PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.02.2012 IN LACA
NO.238/2010 PASSED BY LEARNED III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE, GULBARGA AND CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AWARD
DATED 05.06.1996 PASSED IN LAC NO.494/1994 BY THE
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) GULBARGA IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MSA NO. 1023/2013:
BETWEEN:
UNION OF INDIA,
THROUGH DIVISIONAL ENGINEER,
SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAYS, WADI,
TQ. CHITTAPUR, DIST. GULBARGA,
NOW REPRESENTED BY
DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
CONSTRUCTIONS-III,
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7638
MSA No. 1026 of 2013
C/W MSA No. 1022 of 2013
MSA No. 1023 of 2013
AND 5 OTHERS
SECUNDRABAD-500 071,
ANDHRA PRADESH.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH THE ASST. COMMISSIONER AND
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
SEDAM- 585 222.
2. KALAMMA W/O LATE GURAPPA,
SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LR
SARVESHWAR S/O GUREPPA,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O K. NAGAON, TQ. CHITTAPUR,
DIST. GULBARGA- 585 103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI A. M. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) LA ACT,
PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.02.2012 IN LACA
NO.104/2011 PASSED BY LEARNED III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE, GULBARGA AND CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 05.06.1994 PASSED IN LAC NO.498/1994 BY THE
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, GULBARGA IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MSA NO. 1024/2013:
BETWEEN:
UNION OF INDIA,
THROUGH DIVISIONAL ENGINEER,
SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAYS WADI,
TQ. CHITTAPUR, DIST. GULBARGA,
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7638
MSA No. 1026 of 2013
C/W MSA No. 1022 of 2013
MSA No. 1023 of 2013
AND 5 OTHERS
NOW REPRESENTED BY
DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
CONSTRUCTIONS-III,
SECUNDRABAD-500 071,
ANDHRA PRADESH.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH THE ASST. COMMISSIONER AND
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
SEDAM-585 222.
2. MANNU S/O SAKRU,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O K. NAGAON, TQ. CHITTAPUR,
DIST. GULBARGA - 585 103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI A. M. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF LA ACT
PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.02.2012 IN LACA
NO.24/2010 PASSED BY LEARNED III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE, GULBARGA AND CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 18.03.1998 PASSED IN LAC NO.499/1994 BY THE
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) GULBARGA, DATED
18.03.1998 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MSA.NO. 1025/2013:
BETWEEN:
UNION OF INDIA,
THROUGH DIVISIONAL ENGINEER,
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7638
MSA No. 1026 of 2013
C/W MSA No. 1022 of 2013
MSA No. 1023 of 2013
AND 5 OTHERS
SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAYS WADI,
TQ. CHITTAPUR, DIST. GULBARGA,
NOW REPRESENTED BY
DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
CONSTRUCTIONS-III,
SECUNDRABAD- 500 071,
ANDHRA PRADESH.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH THE ASST. COMMISSIONER AND
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
SEDAM-585 222.
2. SHANKAR S/O LATE CHANDU
DEAD THROUGH HIS LR
SURESH S/O SHANKAR,
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O K. NAGAON, TQ. CHITTAPUR,
DIST. GULBARGA-585 103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI A. M. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF LA ACT
PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.02.2012 IN LACA
NO.38/2010 PASSED BY LEARNED III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE, GULBARGA AND CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 18.03.1998 PASSED IN LAC NO.505/1994 BY THE
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) GULBARGA, DATED
18.03.1998 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7638
MSA No. 1026 of 2013
C/W MSA No. 1022 of 2013
MSA No. 1023 of 2013
AND 5 OTHERS
IN MSA CROSS OBJ NO. 200001/2015:
BETWEEN:
MANNU S/O SAKRU LAMBADA,
AGE: 83 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE,
R/O : K.NAGAON VILLAGE-585 211,
TQ. CHITTAPUR, DIST. GULBARGA.
...CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI A. M. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA,
THROUGH DIVISIONAL ENGINEER,
SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAYS, WADI,
TQ. CHITTAPUR, DIST. GULBARGA,
NOW REPRESENTED BY
DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
CONSTRUCTIONS -III,
SECUNDRABAD-500071,
ANDHRA PRADESH.
2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER &
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
SEDAM-585222.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUDHEER SINGH R. VIJAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R2)
THIS MSA CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF
CPC, PRAYING TO, ALLOW THE CROSS OBJECTION AND
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.02.2012
PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GULBARGA
IN LACA NO.24/2010 BY ENHANCING AND FIXING THE RATE
OF `50,000/- PER ACRE WITH ALL STATUTORY BENEFITS AND
ALSO ENTITLED TO INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF TAKING
POSSESSION WITH COSTS.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7638
MSA No. 1026 of 2013
C/W MSA No. 1022 of 2013
MSA No. 1023 of 2013
AND 5 OTHERS
IN MSA CROSS OBJ NO.200002/2015:
BETWEEN:
KALAMMA W/O LATE GURAPPA,
SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LR.,
SARVESHWAR S/O GURAPPA,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE,
R/O : K. NAGAON VILLAGE-585211,
TQ. CHITTAPUR, DIST. GULBARGA.
...CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI A. M. BIRADAR , ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA,
THROUGH DIVISIONAL ENGINEER,
SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAYS, WADI,
TQ. CHITTAPUR, DIST. GULBARGA,
NOW REPRESENTED BY
DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
CONSTRUCTIONS -III,
SECUNDRABAD-500071,
ANDHRA PRADESH.
2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER &
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
SEDAM-585222.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUDHEER SINGH R. VIJAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R2)
THIS MSA CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF
CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE CROSS OBJECTION AND MODIFY
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.02.2012 PASSED BY
THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GULBARGA IN LACA
NO.104/2011 BY ENCHANCING AND FIXING THE MARKET
VALUE OF THE ACQUIRED LAND OF THE CROSS-OBJECTOR AT
THE RATE OF `50,000/- PER ACRE WITH ALL STATUTORY
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7638
MSA No. 1026 of 2013
C/W MSA No. 1022 of 2013
MSA No. 1023 of 2013
AND 5 OTHERS
BENEFITS AND ALSO ENTITLED TO INTEREST FROM THE DATE
OF TAKING POSSESSION WITH COSTS.
IN MSA CROSS OBJ NO. 200003/2023:
BETWEEN:
SUBHASHCHANDRA
SINCE DEAD THROUGH LRS
1. DYAVAMMA S/O LATE SUBHASHCHANDRA,
AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
2. DEVAKI S/O LATE BHEEMRAYA,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
3. MALLESHI S/O LATE BHEEMRAYA,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
4. NAGARAJ S/O LATE BHEEMRAYA,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
5. VISHWARADHYA S/O LATE BHEEMRAYA,
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
ALL ARE R/O K. NAGAON VILLAGE,
TQ. CHITTAPUR, DIST. KALABURAGI.
...CROSS OBJECTORS
(BY SRI A. M. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA,
THROUGH DIVISIONAL ENGINEER,
SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAYS, WADI,
TQ. CHITTAPUR, DIST. KALABURAGI,
NOW REPRESENTED BY
DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
CONSTRUCTIONS-III,
SECUBDERABAD-500071,
ANDHRA PRADESH.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7638
MSA No. 1026 of 2013
C/W MSA No. 1022 of 2013
MSA No. 1023 of 2013
AND 5 OTHERS
2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER AND
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
SEDAM-585222.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUDHEER SINGH R. VIJAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R2)
THIS MSA CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF
CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE CROSS OBJECTION AND MODIFY
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.02.2012 PASSED BY
THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE GULBARGA IN LACA
NO.238/2010 BY ENHANCING THE FIXING MARKET VALUE OF
THE ACQUIRED LAND OF THE CROSS OBJECTOR AT THE RATE
OF `50,000/- PER ACRE WITH ALL STATUTORY BENEFITS AND
ALSO ENTITLED TO INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF TAKING
POSSESSION WITH COSTS.
THESE APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTIONS, COMING ON
FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED
THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL) These miscellaneous second appeals are filed by the appellants-Union of India through Railways aggrieved by the orders dated 09.02.2012 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Gulbarga (hereinafter referred to as the 'First Appellate Court') in LACA Nos.238/2010, 104/2011, 24/2010, 38/2010 and 37/2010 by which the First
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7638 MSA No. 1026 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1022 of 2013 MSA No. 1023 of 2013 AND 5 OTHERS Appellate Court while condoning the delay of 5215, 5435 and 4277 days in filing the said appeals, enhanced the compensation from `20,000/- awarded by the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Gulbarga (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court') by order dated 05.06.1996 passed in LAC Nos.494/1994 and 498/1994 (subject matter of MSA No.1022/2013 and MSA No.1023/2013) and order dated 18.03.1998 passed in LAC Nos.499/1994, 505/1994 and 508/1994 (subject matter of MSA No.1024/2013, MSA No.1025/2013 and MSA No.1026/2013) to `40,000/- and `30,000/- respectively.
2. MSA CROB Nos.200001/2015, 200002/2015 and 200003/2023 are filed by the respondents-land owners seeking further enhancement of compensation.
3. The land subject matter of
i) MSA No.1022/2013 (LAC No.494/1994 & LACA No.238/2010) is Sy.No.420/2 measuring 2 acres;
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7638
MSA No. 1026 of 2013
C/W MSA No. 1022 of 2013
MSA No. 1023 of 2013
AND 5 OTHERS
ii) The land subject matter of MSA
No.1023/2013 (LAC No.498/1994 and LACA No.104/2011) is Sy.No.382/2 measuring 1 acre 30 guntas;
iii) The land subject matter of MSA
No.1024/2013 (LAC No.499/1994 &
LACA No.24/2010) is Sy.No.97/2
measuring 2 acres;
iv) The land subject matter of MSA
No.1025/2013 (LAC No.505/1994 &
LACA No.38/2010) is Sy.No.107/2
measuring 1acre 24 guntas;
v) The land subject matter of MSA
No.1026/2013 (LAC No.508/1994 and LACA No.37/2010) is Sy.No.19/2 measuring 1 acre 30 guntas.
All these lands belonging to the respective respondents/land owners are situated in K.Nagaon village of Chittapur taluka, Kalaburagi district.
4. The aforesaid lands were sought to be acquired in terms of notification dated 01.11.1990 issued under
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7638 MSA No. 1026 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1022 of 2013 MSA No. 1023 of 2013 AND 5 OTHERS Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the L.A.Act' for short) for the purpose of laying railway line from Wadi to Vikarabad.
5. The Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the market value of the aforesaid lands at `7,500/- per acre. Not being satisfied with the determination of compensation, the respondents-land owners had sought reference of the matters under Section 18 of the L.A.Act. Accordingly, matters were referred in LAC Nos.494/1994, 498/1994, 499/1994, 505/1994 and 508/1994. The reference Court by the orders referred to hereinabove namely, 05.06.1996 passed in LAC Nos.494/1994 and 498/1994 and 18.03.1998 passed in LAC Nos.499/1994, 504/1994 and 505/1994 enhanced the compensation payable to the land owners for `7,500/- to `20,000/- per acre.
6. The respondents-land owners thereafter preferred the appeals under Section 54(1) of the L.A.Act
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7638 MSA No. 1026 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1022 of 2013 MSA No. 1023 of 2013 AND 5 OTHERS read with Section 96 of C.P.C seeking enhancement of the compensation by fixing the market value at `40,000/- per acre instead of `20,000/- as fixed by the L.A.Court.
7. Along with said appeals, applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 were also filed seeking condonation of delay of 5215 days in LACA Nos.238/2010 and 5435 days in LACA No.104/2011, 4277 days in LACA Nos.24/2010, 37/2010 and 38/2010 respectively. The First Appellate Court by the impugned orders while allowing the applications filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 condoned the delay. Further the First Appellate Court relying upon the judgment dated 15.02.2006 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.1377/2001 between Krishnaji versus Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, Sedam enhanced the compensation by fixing the market value at `30,000/- and `40,000/- per acre in respect of the acquired land with all statutory benefits
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7638 MSA No. 1026 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1022 of 2013 MSA No. 1023 of 2013 AND 5 OTHERS excluding the interest payable for the delayed period as noted in the impugned orders.
8. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants - Union of India through Railways is before this Court in MSA No.1026/2013, MSA No.1022/2023, MSA No.1023/2013, MSA No.1024/2013 and MSA No.1025/2013, while the land owners are before this Court in MSA CROB No.200001/2015, MSA CROB No.200002/2015 and MSA CROB No.200003/2023 seeking further enhancement of the compensation.
9. Sri Manvendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for appellants-Union of India through Railways at the outset submits that the First Appellate Court grossly erred in allowing the applications filed by the land owners under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In that, he submits that the affidavits accompanying the applications filed by the land owners do not whisper anything whatsoever with regard to the reasons justifying the delay in filing the appeals.
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7638 MSA No. 1026 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1022 of 2013 MSA No. 1023 of 2013 AND 5 OTHERS
10. He submits in the absence of any reasons or sufficient cause shown by the respondents - land owners warranting condonation of delay, the First Appellate Court ought not to have condoned the delay. He submits even the reasons assigned by the First Appellate Court to condone the inordinate delay are perverse inasmuch as the First Appellate Court has merely referred to certain orders passed by this Court condoning the delay without even ascertaining whether the facts and circumstances involved in the said cases were similar to the one at hand. He relies upon the following judgments :
a) Basawaraj versus the Special Land Acquisition Officer - AIR 2014 SC 746;
b) State of Karnataka versus S.K.Parthasarathy Raju - AIR Online 2021 KAR 331; and
c) Lingeswaran etc. versus Thirunagalingam -
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 227.
11. Thus, referring to these judgments the learned counsel submits that unless the respondents- land owners
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7638 MSA No. 1026 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1022 of 2013 MSA No. 1023 of 2013 AND 5 OTHERS had made out and had explained as to the sufficient cause which prevented them from filing the appeals within the prescribed time, the First Appellate Court could not and ought not to have condoned the delay.
12. As regards the merits of the cases learned counsel relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Manoj Kumar and others versus State of Haryana and others1 submits that the respondents-land owners have absolutely led no evidence whatsoever either before the Trial Court or before the First Appellate Court with regard to nature, location, or the market value of the acquired land. That the First Appellate Court, merely relying upon the judgment of this Court passed in MFA No.1377/2001, which in turn was passed based on the order passed in MFA No.5560/1999 has adopted the market value of `3/- sq.ft. in respect of agricultural land and `6/- sq.ft. in respect of non-agricultural land. He submits respondents-land owners not having adduced any 1 (2018) 13 SCC 96
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7638 MSA No. 1026 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1022 of 2013 MSA No. 1023 of 2013 AND 5 OTHERS evidence, the First Appellate Court ought not to have enhanced the compensation without adverting to the material evidence on record. Hence seeks for allowing of the appeals by setting aside the impugned orders passed by the First Appellate Court.
13. Per contra, Sri A.M.Biradar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-land owners, apart from justifying the impugned orders passed by the First Appellate Court also seeks for further enhancement of the compensation. He submits that the purpose of acquisition of land which was subject matter of the land in MFA No.1377/2001 and the purpose of acquisition of the present land is for the similar and identical purposes, namely, laying of railway lane and they arise out of the same notification and are situated in the very same village, namely K.Nagaon of Chittapur village, Gulbarga district.
14. He however fairly submits that no evidence was led in by the parties for enhancement of compensation.
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7638 MSA No. 1026 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1022 of 2013 MSA No. 1023 of 2013 AND 5 OTHERS Nevertheless, he insists that a judicial notice have to be taken inasmuch as the lands in question are situated within the very same village in respect of which compensation in MFA No.1377/2001 has been granted and that applying the principle of parity, which is envisaged under Section 28(A) of the L.A.Act, respondents-land owners shall be treated on par with the land owners in the said MFA No.1377/2001. Hence, he submits the appeals filed by the Union of India-Railways be dismissed and the cross-objections filed by the respondents-land owners be allowed, fixing the market value of the property at `3/- sq.ft. as done in the said MFA No.1377/2001.
15. On the question of condonation of limitation of delay of 5435, 5215 and 4277 days respectively in filing the appeals, learned counsel for respondents-land owners submit that the condonation of delay is a discretionary power of the First Appellate Court which has been duly exercised considering the literacy level of the respondents- land owners and the fact situation of the matters as
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7638 MSA No. 1026 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1022 of 2013 MSA No. 1023 of 2013 AND 5 OTHERS narrated in the affidavits accompanying the applications which cannot be interfered in these appeals. He submits that the First Appellate Court has referred to various orders passed by this Court condoning the delay in excess of ten years and the case of the respondents not being different from the cases referred to by the First Appellate Court while condoning the delay, no fault can be found with the order passed by the First Appellate Court in condoning the delay.
16. Thus, he submits on both the counts the appeals filed by the Union of India represented by Railways are required to be dismissed while the cross- objections filed by the respondents-land owners be allowed.
17. Heard and perused the records.
18. The points that arise for consideration are :-
i) Whether the Land Acquisition Court is justified in condoning the delay of
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7638 MSA No. 1026 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1022 of 2013 MSA No. 1023 of 2013 AND 5 OTHERS 5435, 5215 and 4277 days in filing the appeals ?
ii) Whether the Land Acquisition Court is justified in enhancing the compensation based on the orders passed in MFA No.1377/2001 ?
19. There is no dispute of the fact that in the order subject matter of MSA Nos.1022 and 1023 of 2013 arising out of LACA No.238/2010 and LACA No.104/2011, there was delay of 5215 and 5435 days in filing the appeals before the First Appellate Court while in the impugned order subject matter of MSA Nos.1024, 1025 and 1026 of 2013 arising out of LACA No.24/2010, LACA No.38/2010 and LACA No.37/2010 there is a delay of 4277 days in filing the appeals before the First Appellate Court.
20. Common reasons which are assigned in the affidavit accompanying the applications filed in these matters under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read as under :
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7638 MSA No. 1026 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1022 of 2013 MSA No. 1023 of 2013 AND 5 OTHERS "4. That the deponent has received compensation by producing the succession certificate in the year 2001.
5. That the deponent's and some of the other claimants land acquisition proceedings looked by Senior Advocate, Janardhan Bhat son of Manik Bhat whose land was also acquired and on reference his case was registered as LAC 493 of 1994. The deponent is illiterate and hence he approached the said Advocate. Mr.Janrdhan Bhat and asked about the appeal as the amount awarded was inadequate, improper, he agreed and told that the appeal lies before the Hon'ble High Court and it will take time for enhancement.
5. Lateron the deponent and his family has to be shifted to Bombay for their livelihood as there was no job in the village and no land for agriculture as the only source of income was lost.
6. That the deponent recently came to village and enquired about the appeal and came to know that there was no appeal made. The deponent has applied for and obtained the certified copy and preferred this appeal."
21. It is settled law that when an application seeking condonation of delay is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the applicant is required to satisfy the Court that there was sufficient cause for not preferring or making an application "within period of
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7638 MSA No. 1026 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1022 of 2013 MSA No. 1023 of 2013 AND 5 OTHERS limitation prescribed". (RAMLAL, MOTILAL AND CHHOTELAL VS. REWA COALFIELDS LIMITED2). Thus applicants seeking condonation shall provide the reasons for not filing the appeal within the period prescribed. It is of no consequences, if the delay is explained with regard to the period subsequent to the expiry of the period of limitation.
22. In the light of the aforesaid position of law, the reasons assigned in the affidavit as extracted herein above would indicate that the respondents-deponents had received the compensation as awarded by the Trial Court in the year 2001, though the orders in the land acquisition cases were passed on 05.06.1996 and 18.03.1998 respectively. This means even when they received the compensation awarded by the Trial Court, period of limitation to file the appeals, if any, had already expired. The respondents-land owners have not afforded any reason whatsoever as to their inability to file appeals 2 (1962) 2 SCR 762
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7638 MSA No. 1026 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1022 of 2013 MSA No. 1023 of 2013 AND 5 OTHERS within the time stipulated. It is only after expiry of 5435, 5215 and 4277 days respectively as noted above, purportedly upon the advice given by their counsel, they have filed the appeals before the First Appellate Court seeking condonation of delay as noted above. The cause shown in the affidavits accompanying with the applications as extracted hereinabove hardly meets the requirement of law. Though condonation of delay is within the discretionary excise of the power of the Court and has to be liberally construed to meet the ends of justice such discretionary power shall be exercised judiciously with the cogent reasons assigned thereof. In the absence of the same, excise of discretionary power would not remain a judicious exercise.
23. At para 5 of the impugned orders, the First Appellate Court while referring to certain orders passed by this Court condoning the delay of about 2381, 2251 and 4313 days of delay in filing the appeals has given to following reasons ;-
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7638 MSA No. 1026 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1022 of 2013 MSA No. 1023 of 2013 AND 5 OTHERS "In order to bring an end to the litigation and also keeping in mind the fact that appellant, being illiterate, is hailing from remote village and considering the principles laid down by their lordship in the aforesaid decisions, in my considered opinion that without going into the depth of sufficient cause for the delay in preferring the appeal, if the delay is condoned by denying the benefit of interest for the delayed period, it will suffice the ends of justice." Thus, by giving the reasons as above, the First Appellate Court has proceeded to condone the inordinate delay of 5435, 5215 and 44277 days respectively.
24. The Apex Court in the case of Basawaraj versus The Special Land Acquisition Officer (supra) at paragraphs 8, 9 and 15 has held as under :
8. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated.
Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7638 MSA No. 1026 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1022 of 2013 MSA No. 1023 of 2013 AND 5 OTHERS has been passed by a Judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a similarly wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise, Article 14 cannot be stretched too far for otherwise it would make functioning of administration impossible. (Vide: Chandigarh Administration & Anr. v. Jagjit Singh & Anr., AIR 1995 SC 705: (1995 AIR SCW 493), M/s. Anand Button Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 565; (2005 AIR SCW 67); K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P. & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 898; (2006 AIR SCW
345); and Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 2010 SC 1937; (2010 AIR SCW 3543).
9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word "sufficient" embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, "sufficient cause" means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has "not acted diligently" or "remained inactive". However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the Court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7638 MSA No. 1026 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1022 of 2013 MSA No. 1023 of 2013 AND 5 OTHERS furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose. (See: Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. v. Bhootnath Banerjee & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 1336; Lala Matadin v. A. Narayanan, AIR 1970 SC 1953; Parimal v.Veena @ Bharti AIR 2011 SC 1150; and Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai AIR 2012 SC 1629) : (2012 AIR SCW 2412).
10. xxxx
11. xxxx
15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bonafide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature."
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7638 MSA No. 1026 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1022 of 2013 MSA No. 1023 of 2013 AND 5 OTHERS
25. The Apex Court in the case of Lingeswaran etc. versus Thirunagalingam (supra) at paragraph 5 and 5.1 has held as under :
"5. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. Once it was found even by the learned trial Court that delay has not been properly explained and even there are no merits in the application for condonation of delay, thereafter, the matter should rest there and the condonation of delay application was required to be dismissed. The approach adopted by the learned trial Court that, even after finding that, in absence of any material evidence it cannot be said that the delay has been explained and that there are no merits in the application, still to condone the delay would be giving a premium to a person who fails to explain the delay and who is guilty of delay and laches. At this stage, the decision of this Court in the case of Popat Bahiru Goverdhane v. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 765 is required to be referred to. In the said decision, it is observed and held that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same.
5.1. In the case of Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, (2012)
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7638 MSA No. 1026 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1022 of 2013 MSA No. 1023 of 2013 AND 5 OTHERS 5 SCC 157, in paragraph 14, it is observed and held as under:
"The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The limitation Act, 1963 has not been enacted with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they approach the court for vindication of their rights without unreasonable delay. The idea underlying the concept of limitation is that every remedy should remain alive only till the expiry of the period fixed by the legislature. At the same time, the courts 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."
26. In the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs and others versus The Special Deputy Collector (LA)3 at paragraph 30 has held as under :
"30. The aforesaid decisions would not cut any ice as imposition of conditions are not warranted when sufficient cause has not been shown for condoning the delay. Secondly, delay is not liable to be condoned merely because some persons have been granted relief on the facts of their own case. Condonation of delay in such circumstances is in violation of the legislative intent or the express provision of the statute. Condoning of the delay merely for the reason that the claimants have been 3 [2024] SSCR 580
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7638 MSA No. 1026 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1022 of 2013 MSA No. 1023 of 2013 AND 5 OTHERS deprived of the interest for the delay without holding that they had made out a case for condoning the delay is not a correct approach, particularly when both the above decisions have been rendered in ignorance of the earlier pronouncement in the case of Basawaraj (supra)."
27. Thus, in view of the factual aspect of the matter narrated hereinabove and in the light of the settled position of law referred to above, this Court is of the considered view that the First Appellate Court was not justified in condoning the delay as done in the instant case. That too by order without assigning any reason except the one referred to hereinabove which on the face of it runs contrary to the provisions of law. As such, the order allowing the applications condoning the delay of 5435, 5215 days and 4277 days cannot be sustained.
28. Since the First Appellate Court has also adverted to the merits of the case necessary at this juncture to refer to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Manoj Kumar's case (supra), has held as under :
- 31 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7638 MSA No. 1026 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1022 of 2013 MSA No. 1023 of 2013 AND 5 OTHERS "12. We have come across several decisions where the High Court is adopting the previous decisions as binding. The determination of compensation in each case depends upon the nature of land and what is the evidence adduced in each case, may be that better evidence has been adduced in later case regarding the actual value of property and subsequent sale deeds after the award and before preliminary notification under section 4 are also to be considered, if filed. It is not proper to ignore the evidence adduced in the case at hand.
The compensation cannot be determined by blindly following the previous award/judgment. It has to be considered only a piece of evidence not beyond that. Court has to apply the judicial mind and is supposed not to follow the previous awards without due consideration of the facts and circumstances and evidence adduced in the case in question. The current value reflected by comparable sale deeds is more reliable and binding for determination of compensation in such cases award/judgment relating to an acquisition made before 5 to 10 years cannot form the safe basis for determining compensation.
13. The awards and judgment in the cases of others not being inter parties are not binding as precedents. Recently, we have seen the trend of the courts to follow them blindly probably under the misconception of the concept of equality and fair treatment. The courts are being swayed away and this approach in the absence of and similar nature and situation of land is causing more injustice and tantamount to giving equal treatment in the case of unequal's. As per situation of a village, nature of land its value differ from the distance to distance even two to three kilometer distance may also make the material difference in value. Land abutting Highway may fetch higher value but not land situated in interior villages.
- 32 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7638 MSA No. 1026 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1022 of 2013 MSA No. 1023 of 2013 AND 5 OTHERS
14. The previous awards/judgments are the only piece of evidence at par with comparative sale transactions. The similarity of the land covered by previous judgment/award is required to be proved like any other comparative exemplar. In case previous award/judgment is based on exemplar, which is not similar or acceptable, previous award/judgment of court cannot be said to be binding. Such determination has to be out rightly rejected. In case some mistake has been done in awarding compensation, it cannot be followed on the ground of parity an illegality cannot be perpetuated. Such award/judgment would be wholly irrelevant.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
17. To rely upon judgment/award in case it does not form part of evidence recorded by reference court, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 is to be filed to adduce evidence and if it is allowed opposite party has to be given opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal. The award/judgment cannot be taken into consideration while hearing arguments unless they form part of evidence in the case."
29. Perusal of the order passed by the First Appellate Court would indicate that the First Appellate Court has merely relied upon the order dated 15.02.2006 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.1377/2001 in the case of Krishnaji versus Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, Sedam
- 33 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7638 MSA No. 1026 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1022 of 2013 MSA No. 1023 of 2013 AND 5 OTHERS to enhance the compensation from `20,000/- to `40,000/- per acre. Admittedly, no evidence has been led in by the respondents-land owners in the instant case before the First Appellate Court except relying upon the said order passed in MFA No.1377/2001. Though the said order dated 15.02.2006 passed by this Court in the said MFA No.1377/2001, refers to the land which was acquired in terms of the notification dated 01.11.1990 for similar purpose as that of the one at hand and in respect of the lands situated in the same village, necessary to note that the said order was in turn has been passed taking into consideration of the judgment and award that was passed in another case in MFA No.5560/1999 on the principles of parity. The order in the said MFA No.5560/1999 in turn had been passed relying upon the order that was passed in LAC No.353/1993, wherein the compensation was granted at the rate of `6/- per sq.ft. The lands which are subject matter of the said in LAC No.353/1993 were situated in Sedam taluk and were subject matter of the
- 34 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7638 MSA No. 1026 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1022 of 2013 MSA No. 1023 of 2013 AND 5 OTHERS notification dated 14.06.1990. The lands which are subject matter in present appeals are situated in K.Nagaon village of Chittapur taluk. Thus, the two lands are situated in a different and distinct villages and talukas.
30. Further, MFA No.1377/2001 arises out of an order dated 08.12.2000 passed in LAC No.504/1994 and LAC No.509/1994. Perusal of the said order in LAC Nos.504 and 509 of 1994 would further indicate that the claimants therein had adduced evidence with regard to the location of their land, namely lands situated within the limits of Chittapur town and surrounded by residential houses and other buildings and that the said lands were situated within one and a half kilometers away from Chittapur Railway Station. Further, land in LAC No.509/2004 was converted into 'non-agricultural' land while land in LAC No.504/1994 was having 'non- agricultural' potential. Thus, based on the material evidence led in by the claimants in the said cases, the Trial
- 35 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7638 MSA No. 1026 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1022 of 2013 MSA No. 1023 of 2013 AND 5 OTHERS Court had enhanced the compensation as made thereunder.
31. Thus, reliance placed on by the respondents- land owners in the instant case to the orders passed in MFA No.5560/1999 and MFA No.1377/2001 are of no avail, particularly in the absence of any specific material evidence having led to show the similarity of lands involved in the said case with that of the lands involved in the present case justifying claim for parity. There is no doubt that the respondents-claimants would be entitled for treatment equal to that of the other land losers in terms of Section 28(A) of Land Acquisition Act, provided they discharge the initial burden of proving the similarity of the lands by leading independent material evidence, instead of merely claiming the land to be situated similarly to that of the one subject matter of the subsequent award. As already noted above, admittedly except producing the certified copy of the order in MFA No.1377/2001, no efforts have been made to lead any evidence whatsoever.
- 36 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7638 MSA No. 1026 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1022 of 2013 MSA No. 1023 of 2013 AND 5 OTHERS Reasons assigned by the First Appellate Court at paragraph 10 of the impugned order read as under :
"10. If the compensation awarded by the Hon`ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore in MFA No. 1377/2001(LAC) @ `3/-per square foot is taken into consideration in respect of one acre of land, which consists of 43,560 square feet, the total compensation comes to `1,30,680/-per acre. As I have earlier stated, the trial court has fixed the compensation of `20,000/- per acre by its judgment dated 18.3.1998. However, in LAC No.504/1994 disposed of on 8.12.2000, which is directly connected to the case on hand and which was challenged in MFA No.1377/2001 (LAC), the trial court has fixed the award at `50,000/- per acre. Now, it becomes crystal clear that in LAC No.508/94, which is under challenge in the appeal on hand and in LAC No.504/94, it is an undisputed fact that all these lands are situated in Chittapur Taluk of Gulbarga District and they were acquired under the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of L.A. Act dated 1.11.1990 for the purpose of doubling of the Railway Line. Hence, prima-facie it appears to me that what the claimant has claimed the enhancement of compensation in the present case is very low and even the same becomes very less than what the trial court has awarded in the later connected case i.e., LAC No.504/1994, which was modified to the extent of `3/- per square foot in MFA No. 1377/2001. Hence, considering all these aspects, I feel that the appellant may be granted the enhanced compensation of at least `30,000/- per acre, which is less than the award passed by the trial court in LAC No.504/1994, which is directly connected to the case on hand as stated supra. Hence, from my above findings, I arrive at an irresistible conclusion that the proper and correct market value has to be fixed at `30,000/- per acre
- 37 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7638 MSA No. 1026 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1022 of 2013 MSA No. 1023 of 2013 AND 5 OTHERS in respect of the acquired land in question, which will suffice the ends of justice. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the negative and point No.2 accordingly."
Thus, the impugned order is completely based on guess work without any evidence or any reasons justifying application of principles of parity.
32. Thus, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Manoj Kumar's case (supra) this Court is of the considered view that the First Appellate Court ought not to have enhanced the compensation as done in the instant case. Points raised above are answered accordingly.
33. For the aforesaid reasons and analysis, following :
ORDER The appeals filed by Union of India - Railways in MSA Nos.1026/2013, 1022/2013, 1023/2013, 1024/2013 and 1025/2013 are allowed.
- 38 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7638 MSA No. 1026 of 2013 C/W MSA No. 1022 of 2013 MSA No. 1023 of 2013 AND 5 OTHERS The order passed by First Appellate Court in LACA No.37/2010, LACA No.238/2010, LACA No.104/2011, LACA No.24/2010 and LACA No.38/2010 dated 09.02.2012 are set aside.
Consequently, MSA CROB Nos.200001/2015, 200002/2015 and MFA CROB No.200003/2023 filed by respondents-land owners are dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(M.G.S.KAMAL) JUDGE SDU/SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36 CT:PK