STATE OF C.G. Vs. OMLATA AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant filed application (I.A. No. 01/2024), application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

(2.) Mr. R.N. Pusty, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant/plaintiff has preferred the First Appeal under Sec. 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 against the judgment & decree dtd. 17/04/2023 passed by the learned Tribunal. After passing the impugned award dtd. 17/04/2023, the Under Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Mantralya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar [CG] vide its letter 01/12/2023, sought permission / sanction to file the instant appeal from the Secretary, Department of Law & Legislative Affairs, Raipur & Secretary, Department of Revenue, Raipur and thereafter sanction was given to file the instant appeal and Officer Incharge of the case was appointed on 01/03/2024. Thereafter, the concerned Officer In-charge of the case made all possible efforts to collect the requisite documents which were required for filing the instant appeal which took some time. Therefore, there is no willful intention to cause delay in the matter but due to requirement of permission which involves various departmental formalities and, therefore, the appeal could not be filed within time. Though sincere efforts were made by the revenue authorities to avoid delay but in spite of that, the delay could not be avoided and the same is bonafide. There is no deliberate lapse on the part of authorities but due to procedures involved, the delay has caused. He further submits that the State is a multi- functioning body and it has to follow the rules of obtaining sanction etc. for filing an appeal, therefore, it took some time for the State to obtain sanction etc. from the highest authorities of the State for preferring this appeal. The delay caused in filing the instant appeal may kindly be condoned on the basis of principles as laid down in case of "State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok Ao and others" reported in (2005) 3 SCC 752.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent strongly opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the appellant has filed the instant appeal under Sec. 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 17/4/2023. The appeal has been filed on 12/3/2024 and there is a delay of near about 9 months in filing the appeal. No proper and satisfactory explanation has been given for the delay caused in filing the appeal. The State Government took almost 9 months' time to decide whether this appeal has to be filed or not? The only reason assigned for delay in filing the appeal has been narrated in para 3 of the application. He further submits that from bare perusal of the averments made in para 3 of the application, it appears that the secretary of the department sought permission to file the appeal, after 8 months. The first letter dtd. 1/12/2023 itself shows that the steps were taken after near about 8 months and no explanation was given for the delay between 17/4/2023 and 1/12/2023. The award was passed on 7/6/2017 thereafter the claim of the respondent was allowed on 17/4/2023 and near about 7 years have already been lapsed in between. The reasons assigned in the application appear to be vague. Therefore, in absence of any sufficient cause, the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal deserves to be rejected.