NIZAMUDIN AND ORS. Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all the above said appeals, the point that arise for consideration is:

(2.) AS could be seen from the Memorandum of Appeals and also the orders passed by the First Appellate Court which are impugned in these appeals, there is delay of more than 5000 days in all the above said cases before the First Appellate Court. The application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before the First Appellate Court was opposed by specifically filing statement of objections by the State.

(3.) SRI Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contends before this Court that there is a mistake committed by me counsel appearing for the appellants before the First Appellate Court. Though there is in detail affidavits are filed in support of the limitation applications, the evidence has not been lead on the applications in order to prove such facts before the Court. Not only the appellants have preferred appeals in delayed manner on the ground that in other similar set of cases the compensation has been enhanced, but also they have taken up several contentions as to why they could not able to prefer the appeals. That is to say, they are poor farmers, lost their lands and compensation has not been paid within time. They were penniless after the lands being acquired. Therefore, they were unable to pay court fee. Therefore there is long delay in preferring the appeals. These are the factors that ought to have been satisfied before the Court by leading evidence by the parties by providing sufficient materials before the Court. Due to the mistake of the counsel, that opportunity has been lost to the appellants. Therefore, he contends that for the mistake of the advocate the party should not suffer therefore an opportunity may be provided to the appellants to lead their evidence in support of limitation application and also file necessary documents to show that they have sufficient reasons to prefer appeals in delayed manner and they were prevented by genuine and sufficient cause.