PRALHAD RAMBHAU DHOLE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application, it is prayed that the delay in filing the appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 be condoned. In the application, it has been stated that the Reference Court passed its award on 1-11-1991. In the meanwhile the original claimant had expired and the applicants are his legal heirs. First Appeal No.269/1998 was decided by this Court in which the claimants were held entitled for compensation @ Rs.65,000/- per hectare. It is stated that as the applicants herein are similarly situated, they are entitled to receive the similar compensation. On getting knowledge of the aforesaid award, the applicants applied for certified copy on 24-10-2016 which was received on 11-11-2016. The appeal has been filed thereafter.

(2.) In support of the application, Shri R. J. Shinde, learned Counsel for the applicants by relying upon the decisions in Dhiraj Singh vs. Haryana State and Ors. 2014 (14) SCC 127 and Imrat Lal and others vs. Land Acquisition Collector and others 2014 (9) SCALE 446 submitted that the delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned if necessary by putting the applicants to reasonable terms. Such terms could also include the applicants being deprived of the amount of interest on the compensation amount if enhanced. He further submitted that such approach would meet the ends of justice. He also referred to similar orders passed in various appeals under the said Act condoning delay therein subject to the claimants being deprived of interest.

(3.) Ms. M. Naik, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the non-applicants opposed the prayer as made. She referred to the reply filed on record and submitted that the reasons mentioned in the application were not sufficient to condone the long period of delay. No steps were taken by the original claimant during his life time to have the amount of compensation enhanced. After the land was acquired, the right of the claimant therein came to an end. His legal heirs therefore did not represent the estate of the deceased and they were not entitled to prosecute the present application. She referred to the decision in Andhra Bank vs. R. Srinivasan AIR 1962 SC 232 in that regard. Reliance was also placed on the decision in Basawaraj and anr. vs. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer AIR 2014 SC 746 as well as the decision in Ishwar Dutt vs Land Acquisition Collector AIR 2005 SC 3165 to submit that absence of sufficient cause would preclude the Court from condoning the delay. It was thus submitted that the application for condonation of delay was liable to be dismissed.