Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

GANGULY, J.

1. Interesting questions involving interpretation of Order XLI Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter "CPC") fall for decision in this case in which the relevant facts are that a preliminary notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') was issued on 24.4.1997, for acquisition of land in Survey No. 616/1/1 measuring 2 acres 29 guntas and in Survey No. 616/1B/1 measuring 1 acre 2 guntas. The award was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 13.04.1999; he considered the land acquired to be dry land and fixed compensation amount at the rate of Rs.31,650/- per acre.

On 19.11.2002, the appellants filed cross-objections before the High Court, under Order XLI, Rule 22 of CPC, along with an application for condonation of delay of 404 days in filing the cross-objections.

4. On 22.10.2003, the High Court, vide the first impugned judgment, dismissed the appeal of the State holding that the point for consideration in the appeal was squarely covered by the judgment of that court dated 12.8.2003 in M.F.A. No. 3278 of 2001, as a result of which the appeal was liable to be dismissed. The High Court also held that the landowners were entitled to interest with effect from the date of the award, i.e. from 13.4.1999. Against the said judgment, the State came up in the present appeal before this court i.e. Civil Appeal No. 5113 of 2005.

5. On the same day, the High Court, vide the second impugned judgment, also dismissed the cross objections filed by the landowners. In the appeal dismissing the cross objections, two points came up for consideration before the High Court:

(i) Whether the limitation period of one month prescribed under Order XLI Rule 22 (1) of CPC shall run from 12.9.2001 as contended by learned government advocate or from the date of service of notice of date of hearing of appeal fixed by the court, as contended by the learned advocate of the landowner.

Subsequently, on 25.1.2002, the Division Bench permitted the cross objectors to move for an early hearing of the appeal. It held as follows:

"Therefore, it is quite clear that on 12.9.2001 itself, the Division Bench thought it appropriate to hear the appeals out of turn and accordingly directed the office to post the appeal for hearing immediately after the records are received. The submission of Sri Kalagi that since the Division Bench did not fix a particular date for final hearing of the appeal, it would not satisfy the requirement of Order XLI Rule 22(1) CPC, is not acceptable to us. We can take judicial notice of the fact that quite often courts direct the final hearing of the matters out of turn or in regular course without fixing a specific date for final hearing of cases. Once an order is made by the court for final hearing, the registry, in compliance with the direction and having regard to the workload of the court concerned, would post cases for final hearing. Therefore, it could not be said that the Division Bench did not direct final hearing of the appeal on 12.9.2001. The language implied by the Division Bench would go to show that the High Court wanted the registry to post the appeal for final hearing out of turn immediately after the records were received. It is quite apparent from the records that the cross objection was not filed either within one month from the date of fixing the date of the appeal or from the date the records of the lower court were received by the registry of this court. Therefore, the cross objectors' contention based on the provisions of Order XLI Rule 22(1) CPC is misconceived and untenable."