Karnataka High Court
Basawaraj S/O Kashappa vs The Spl Land Acquisition Officer on 10 June, 2011
Bench: K.Sreedhar Rao, L.Narayana Swamy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA | | DATED THIS THE 107 DAY OF JUNE 2011. > PRESENT _ ; a THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SREDMAR RAO. s : . THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANASWAMY MFA NO 10766 OF 2067 C/W MFA 10765/07 MPA NO. 10766/2007~ BETWEEN L. BASAWARAJ S 70 KASHAPPA Age:54- oe AGED ABQUT 54, YRS occ AGRICULTU RE 2. JAGANATH S/O KASHAPPA Age:45_ -. AGED ABOUT 45 YRS-OCC AGRICULTURE . BOTH APE R/AT MAHAGAON TQ AND DIST _ GULBARGA NOW THEY ARE R/AT H NO.7-629 NEHRU G G 3UNJ GULBARGA .. APPELLANTS By Sri. : SHARANABASSAPPA K BABSHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND : 4 a OTHE SPL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER me M AND MIP GULBARGA . RESPONDENT "(Sy Sti.:SHIVAKUMAR TENGNL HCGP } Cad NOW. THEY R/AT BELKOTA REHABILITATION _ . CENTRE AT KAMLAPUR TQ AND DIST GULBARGA 5. AMBARAYA Age:24. a S/O GANGADHAR AGED ABOUT 24 YRS OCC AGRICULTURE R/AT MAHAGAON TQ AND DIST GU LRARGA. NOW. THEY R/AT BELKOTA REHABILITATION | CENTRE AT KAMLAPUR TQ AND Be DIST GULBARGA 4 | APBELANTS _ (By Sri. : SHARANABASSAPPA K BABSHE oTTY, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE SPL LAND AC QUIS ITION OFFICER. M AND MIP GULBARGA. a ys RESPONDENT (By Sri. Shivakumar' 'Te engni : GA ia MFA FILED U/S.544).OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED 28/2/2003 PASSED IN LAC NO.561/98 ON THE FILE OF THE UE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE(SD) GULBARGA,PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR ENHANCED COMPENSATION & SEEKING FURTHER ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. . "These. apneais coming on for further orders this day, "K, SREEDHAR RAO J, delivered the following:- JUDGMENT
'Sri Gowrish S. Khasampur takes notice for R-2 in both the ae appeals and filed objections statement.
2. Both the appeals arise out of same subject. matter and the paities | in 1 the both appeals are same. "Hence both the appeals are taken up together for consideration: | |
3.In MFA No. 10765/2007 in para 5 and © 3 of the. material i?
averments in the application filed in support of application for condonation of delay, it is stated as follows:
"5. It is subinitted that the application filed by the appellants is liable to be set. aside because the appellants. except saying, orally, did not produce any supportive documents in: support of their averments.
6" That the, Hon ble High Court. of Karnataka in Sri Honnurappa vo R Masthar: (2608 (3) KCCR 1787) held that applivation to "condone, the delay must assign sufficient cogent reasons' by producing materials before the court to condone delay. and the explanation offered should inspire the confidence of the Court. By observing these lacunas in 'the delay application. the Court has oe dismissed the application. Therefore, the application of io ; the: appell lants is liable to be dismissed on the same grounds:
Os 4In ME "A No.10766/07, the Supreme Court in ORIENTAL, AROMA CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD VS GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND \ u ANOTHER reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459, in paras 14. 15 and 16 has made the following observations:-
14. We have considered the respective submissions, The law of limitation is founded on public policy. . The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of.
destroying the rights of the parties: but to ensured that _ they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek: remedy.
without delay. The idea is that every légai remedy must be © kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. Te put it differently, the law of limitation préseribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress: of the legal injury. At the same time the Courts. aire bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time. ae
15. The expression "siiificient éause" employed in Section 5 of the. Limitation 'Act <j 963 and similar other Statues in elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningfui Manner which subserves the ends of justice. Although. no shard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the application for condonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in.condoring: the Gelay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate. Collector (LA) Vs Katiji No Balakrishnan V M. Krishnamurthy and ~Vedabai V. Shantaram Baburao Patil.
"16... In dealing. with the application for condonation of delay" filed. om behalf of the State and its agehcies/insirumentalities this Court has, while emphasising that same yardstick should be applied for deciding the applications for condonation of delay filed by _-pfivate individuals and the State, observed that certain ~ amourit, of latitude is not impermissible in the latter case "because the State represents collective cause of the . community and the decisions are taken by the officers / agencies at a slow pace and encumbered process 3% py of pushing the files from table to tale consumes considerable time causing dealy - G. Ramegwoda V Land. Acquisition Officer, State of Haryana Vs Chandru Mani, State of UP v Harish Chandra, State of Bihar v Ratan Lal «. Sahu, State of Nagaland v Lipck AO and State (NCT-of oe Delhi) v Ahmed Jaan."
5. In both these appeals, the appellasts are the same. The reasons stated are untenable. No documents are furnished to corroborate the ill-health. Besides, uiere Were other family members available to take steps io Sle 'oppeals. The reasons stated does not constitute sufficient cause, Hence ihe applications for condensation of delay are dismissed, Accordingly the appeals are dismissed, The Court fee paid shall be refunded to the appellants.
-.nm*