KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD Vs. SOUMINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions are by the Kerala State Housing Board to condone the delay in filing the respective Land Acquisition Appeals. The petitions are supported by affidavits filed by the Administrative Officer of the Housing Board. According to the petitions, there is a delay of nine days in filing L.A A No. 5 and 6 of 1989, and there is a delay of 58 days in filing L.AA No. 7 and 8 of 1989. The delay is explained in the respective affidavits as due to administrative reasons. There is also delay on the part of the Government Pleader to receive the certified copies of the judgment and decree and to transmit the same to the office of the Housing Board.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondents points out that the certified copies of judgment and decree filed along with the respective memorandums of appeals were obtained by the Government Pleader who had appeared before the court below on behalf of the Special Tahsildar (L.A), Kerala State Housing Board, Kozhikode, the only respondent in the land acquisition reference. The Housing Board is not even a party to the reference and the appeals are accompanied by separate petitions for leave to appeal. Learned counsel therefore submits that the appellant Board is not entitled to exclude the time taken for obtaining the certified copies of judgment and decree of the court below under S.12(2) of the Limitation Act for the reason that the copies were not obtained by the appellant but by the Government Pleader who was appearing in the court below on behalf of the Special Tahsildar (L.A), Kerala State Housing Board. The respondents rely on the decision in Oommen v. Mar Baselius Mar Thoma Mathews ( 1984 KLT 553 ) in support of the above proposition. In that case, an appeal was filed before this court accompanied by a printed copy of the common judgment obtained by a different party in a connected suit. Paripoornan, J, following the decisions of the Privy Council in Pramatha Nath Roy v. Lee ( 49 Indian Appeals 307 ) and in J.N. Surty v. T.S. Chettyar ( 55 Indian Appeals 151 ) and also the decision of a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in State v. Harishankar (1971 All. LJ. 1205) held that the appellant is not entitled to exclusion of time taken by some other party in obtaining a copy of the judgment under S.12(2) of the Limitation Act. Learned counsel for the appellant challenges the correctness of the decision and submits that the appellant is entitled to exclusion of time taken for obtaining the certified copy of the judgment and decree filed along with the memorandum of appeal no matter whoever had applied for the same. In support of this proposition, counsel for the appellant relies on the decisions in Aminuddeen v. Pyari Bi ( AIR 1920 Mad. 159 (2), Majidan v. Dalmir Khan, (AIR (38) 1951 Punjab 388), Union of India v. M/s. Ibrahim Gulaba Tobacco Merchant and Others (AIR 1966 M.P. 52), Purshattam Narayan v. Sugan Chand Pannalal and others (AIR 1964 M.P. 27),Thirumala v. C.K. Anavemareddi ( AIR 1934 Mad.306 (FB), Joseph v. Mathai (1955 TLR 187 (FB)), and B. Narasoji v. The Special Deputy Collector Land Acquisition (General) Hyderabad and another (ILR 1976 A.P. 1079).

(3.) The Kerala State Housing Board is an instrumentality of the State and it functions in the public interest. The preamble to the Kerala State Housing Board Act 1971 states that the Act is "to provide for the organised direction and planning in the preparation and execution of housing and improvement schemes and for the establishment of a State Housing Board in the State of Kerala". S.71 of the Act enacts that land required by the Board for any of its purposes may be acquired under the provisions of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961. As per S.159 of the Act the Board is deemed to be a local authority for the purposes of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act 1961. S.50(2) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act provides that a local authority or a company for which land is acquired under the provisions of the Act may in any proceedings before the Collector or the Court appear and adduce evidence for the purpose of the determination of the amount of compensation. Even though the local authority or the company is not entitled to demand a reference under S.20 of the Land Acquisition Act, the local authority or company is entitled to maintain an appeal against the enhancement of compensation awarded by the reference court. The Supreme Court in Himalayan Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. v. Francis Victor Coutinho ( 1980 (3) SCC 223 ) states at page 228: