NANJUNDA REDDY Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimants in LAC No.68/2003 on the file of the XXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,Bangalore has come up in this appeal impugning the judgment dated 23.12.2016 passed by the Reference Court.

(2.) Admittedly, the application filed under Section 18 reference by the claimants is allowed. Compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) for acquisition of lands of appellants herein was enhanced to Rs. 6,00,000/- as against Rs. 3,40,000/- determined by the LAO. In addition to that they were also given the statutory benefit which would go along with enhanced compensation. The said judgment and award is sought to be challenged in this appeal filed on 16.10.2017, which is after 10 years 8 months from the date of judgment impugned. Hence, the application in I.A.1/17 is filed seeking condonation of delay of 3860 days in filing the appeal, wherein the reasons stated are that the appellants mother was not well and she passed away on 26.07.2013, therefore, there is some delay. Besides that, it is further stated that the appellants' uncle was in charge of Section 18 reference, he did not give the requisite information to the appellants to take up this matter in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. Appellants have placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of K.Subbarayudu and Ors. Vs. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), (2017) 4 RCR(Civ) 428, wherein the Apex Court considering the facts and circumstances in the said case, has condoned the delay of 3671 days. Therefore, that is also made as one of the reason for filing this appeal belatedly on the ground that in the said judgment, the Apex Court has referred to its earlier judgment rendered in the matter of Dhiraj Singh (D) Thr. LRs. Etc. Etc. v. Haryana State and Ors. Etc. reported in , wherein it was held as under:

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. Perused the material available on record which clearly discloses that the compensation which was awarded to the claimants was at Rs. 3,40,000/- per acre pursuant to the order passed by the LAO, which was the subject matter of Section 18 reference before the Court below, where after appreciating the material available on record, the Court below has enhanced the same from Rs. 3,40,000/- to Rs. 6,00,000/- per acre by its judgment dated 212.2006 and thereafter, the present appeal is filed in October '17 obviously indicating that the appellants being emboldened or influenced by the reasonings given in the reported judgment referred to <i>supra</i>, have come up in this appeal after 10' years. The facts and circumstances under which the said petition was allowed and special concession that was granted by the Apex Court would not apply to the facts of the present case. Therefore, their contention that there is already a judgment rendered by apex Court in observing that 3617 days delay being condoned and the same benefit should be extended to the appellants even though the appeal is filed subsequent to the said judgment with unreasonable and inordinate delay could be condoned by looking into the said Judgment cannot be accepted. If the same concession is extended, it is nothing but encouraging every single unsuccessful or partially successful applicant under Section 18 reference to approach this Court by filing the appeals belatedly citing such judgments. Therefore in the fact situation, this Court is of the opinion that the said judgment rendered by the Apex Court will have no bearing to the facts of this case, inasmuch as there was no attempt on the part of the appellants herein to seek enhancement of compensation, from the year 2006 to 2017, admittedly they were happy and contented with the compensation that was awarded. However, in view of enhancement which is considered with reference to someone who had approached the Apex Court, relying upon the same appellants claim cannot be entertained. The same cannot be an yard stick or thumb rule for all other appeals. With such observations, I.A.No.1/2017 is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.