GENERAL MANAGER Vs. DINESH RAMSHANKAR TRIVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main Civil Applications No.488 to 492 of 2011 are for condonation of delay of 1548 days in preferring the appeals against the judgement and award dated 17.4.2006 passed by the Reference Court in the concerned Land Reference Cases, which are impugned in the concerned First Appeals.

(2.) WE have heard Mr.Ajay Mehta, learned Counsel for the applicant on the aspects of condonation of delay at length. WE may also record that in order to see that the merits of the matter may not be frustrated just on the aspects of delay, we have also heard the learned Counsel for the applicant appellant on the merits of First Appeals. WE have heard Mr.A.J. Patel and Mr.Pranav Desai, learned Counsel for the private respondent/original claimant and Ms.Thakkar, learned AGP for respondent No.2 Special Land Acquisition Officer, who is supporting respondent.

(3.) IF the facts are to be considered, the delay on the face of it is inordinate of 1548 days. Therefore, the principles of strict approach would apply for considering as to whether sufficient cause is made out or not. The averments made in the application for condonation of delay and more particularly at paragraph 6 of the application goes to show that after the judgement was received, a conscious decision was taken by the Legal Department of the Appellant not to prefer appeal in the year 2006. Not only that, but the said opinion of the Legal Department was scrutinized and the competent authority namely; EDO-AM had approved the opinion of the Legal Department not to prefer appeal. Not only that but it is coupled with the circumstances that thereafter the payment as per the understanding in calculation by the appellant was deposited and it appears from the subsequent conduct that ONGC applicant herein considered as the judgement and award complied with. However, when the claimants issued notice calling upon the applicant ONGC to comply with the judgement and award fully and thereby to pay the difference of the amount of interest, it appears that the applicant ONGC traced the file and re-examined the matter i.e. approximately after more than 700 days from the award and thereafter at the level of Chief (Services), the decision was taken to prefer appeal and thereafter there was opinion to prefer review application and subsequently, as the review was found not fit, the present appeals have been preferred. The tenor of the application is to pass over the burden of delay upon the respondent claimant, as if it was obligatory for the respondent claimant to insist for compliance of the judgement and award, without considering that the judgement and award is to be complied with by the judgement debtor or the acquiring body appellant herein. The judgement and award of the Reference Court and more particularly the operative portion for awarding compensation of interest from the date of taking over possession was not only self-explanatory, but was as clear as daylight. Merely because there was error or mistake in interpreting the effect or the consequence of the judgement and award at the level of ONGC appellant herein, which is aided by the legal experts, cannot be said as a justifiable ground not to prefer appeal well in time or within the period of limitation. On the contrary, having understood the judgement at one point of time, the decision was taken not to prefer the appeal and to comply with the judgement and award. Under these circumstances, we find that not only the aspect of sufficient cause having not been satisfactorily demonstrated before this Court, but the additional aspect appears to be that the basis or the ground shown for the so-called delay is a mistake or error in not construing or understanding the effect of the judgement, which cannot be accepted, when the applicant appellant is aided by legal experts. Further, the burden for insisting the compliance as sought to be shifted upon the respondent claimant can hardly be termed as a sufficient explanation for the delay in preferring the appeal by the applicant, who was legally required to comply with the judgement and award. Further, the aforesaid aspect is required to be considered with the affidavit-in-reply filed for opposing the condonation of delay by the respondent claimant.