LAWS(ORI)-1988-12-38

SYED MAJUB ALI Vs. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, CUTTACK

Decided On December 05, 1988
Syed Majub Ali Appellant
V/S
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, CUTTACK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals by e claimants are under Sec. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). They were recorded to have been dismissed for non-compliance with the peremptory orders of the court. Appellant coming to know of the dismissal, filed application for restoration of the appeals with applications for condonation of delay. While considering the applications, I was inclined to allow them and on that conclusion both parties agreed that the First Appeals may be heard finally and disposed of dispensing with the formalities to be observed as required under the rules of the court. In view of the nature of the appeals, I heard the appeals on merits also and all the matters are finally decided in this common judgment.

(2.) Lands of the claimants were acquired under the Act for construction of Flood Protection embankment on the left of river Mahanadi and for the said purpose lands in various other contiguous villages were also acquired. Notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Act was published in the year 1972 for the said purpose. Compensation offered by the Land Acquisition officer under Sec. 11 of the Act was received by the claimants protesting against the low rate offered. Since the market value was not accepted, references were made under Sec. 18 of the Act. Trial Court in some cases enhanced the compensation and in some other cases confirmed the rate awarded by the Collector under Sec. 11 of the Act. Those two appeals by the claimants arise out of the Act. These two appeals by the claimants arise out of the awards of the Trial Court where the rate determined by the Collector has been accepted by the Trial Court.

(3.) After admission of the appeals and receipt of the records from the Trial Court, notices were served on the learned counsel for the appellant on 18-8-1980 (F.A. 157/80) and 10-10-80 (F.A. 156/80) for filing of the paper books of compulsory documents and the appellants list for preparation of paper books of exhibited documents as required under Chapter XI of the rules of this Court. Appellant not having filed them, in spite of notice, both the appeals were listed before the Division Bench on 17-1-81 for orders and time was granted for one week to file appellants list and six weeks to file paper books of compulsory documents peremptorily. Since the orders of the Division Bench were not complied with within the time allowed, Deputy Registrar recorded dismissal of F.A. No. 156 of 1980 on 17-3-1981 and F.A. No. 157 of 1980 on 9.4. 1981. Applications for recalling the orders were filed long seven and half years after, on 24.11-1988. Along with the applications, two other applications were filed explaining the cause of delay in filing of the applications. In case there would have been prescribed period of limitation for such application, I would not have condoned any delay since there is no sufficient cause. Mr. D.K. Das, learned counsel for the appellants however, relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Narasingha Charan Swain Vs. Jairam Jena and others, (1982) 53 CLT 87 and submitted that there is no prescribed period of limitation for such applications which are under Sec. 151, C.P.C. Division Bench was considering a case where the appeal was recorded to have been dismissed exactly on similar language as in these two appeals. It was held that non-compliance of peremptory order where it has not been mentioned that the appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to Bench, could not have the effect of dismissal without further order of the Court. In view of the aforesaid decision, the orders of dismissal recorded by the Deputy Registrar cannot have any force which are, accordingly, recalled.