SADBANNA Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER GULBARGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a set of appeals preferred by a group of agriculturists whose lands were acquired by the State for a public purpose, namely, an irrigation project. The appeals are basically for purposes of obtaining enhanced compensation and proceed on the basis that this Court has enhanced the compensation in certain other similar cases. There is a considerable delay in the presentation of these appeals. Mr. Shankar, learned counsel who represents the appellants in all these cases has filed the necessary affidavits in support of the I.As.. for condonation of delay in each case. Basically, each of the appellants contends that the agricultural lands which were the source of livelihood have been acquired by the State, as a result of which the appellants had to migrate elsewhere in search of job. Admittedly, from a reading of 'the affidavits that have been filed, what emerges is that the appellants are all small agriculturists, obviously coming from a rural background and, possibly illiterate or semi-literate. Their status is such that the compensation that they receive for the acquisition of their lands is something of consequence because it is possibly, in the majority of cases, that these lands are the only family asset and source of livelihood. Under these circumstances, if a judicial authority, even at a subsequent point of time, has refixed the quantum of compensation and enhanced it, it is only just and fair that all other similarly situated persons should be beneficiaries of that order.

(2.) Undoubtedly, the procedural law requires that each of the appellants must formally agitate their claim separately for which purpose, the appeals have been filed. Mr. Shankar, places reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another v Mst. Katiji and Others, wherein the Supreme Court has advocated a benevolent approach in such cases and has also laid down certain guide lines which are reproduced below: "xxx xxx xxx 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. 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 meanthat 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.