SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Vs. JYUSHNAMAYEE DEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 5 - General Manager, East -Coast Railway, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar in the district of Khurda argues to enforce the statutory right of the Respondent as provided in Section 50 of the land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the act') and claims for remand of M.J.C. No. 42 of 1997 of the Court of the Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhawanipatna with an opportunity to Respondent No. 5 to adduce evidence on valuation for minimizing and reducing the award. In that respect Respondent No. 5 relies on the case of N.T.P.C. Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (2004) 12 Scc 96.

(3.) IN the case of U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi (Dead) by L.Rs. (supra) the Constitution Bench summarized in the following manner. Law having been decided it appears necessary to refer to the facts as it shall demonstrate that how unfair it would be if such construction as is claimed by the Board is placed on the provision of the L.A. Act. A scheme was notified by the Avas Vika Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 called Trans Yamuna Grihasthan and Sarak Yojana, Agra: It was a combination of a housing accommodation & street scheme. The finalized scheme was published Under Section 32 of the Adhiniyam and the land of the owners was notified to be acquired. An award was made by the Land Acquisition Officer who adopted belting system for determining the market value an divided the land covered by the award into three belts fixing definite amount for each belt. In reference, the Tribunal determined the market value & enhanced the compensation. The High Court in first appeal doubled it nearly. It also awarded solatium at the rate of 30% on the amount of enhanced compensation & interest at the rate of 12% under Sub -section (1 -A) of Section 23 of the L.A. Act. The High Court decided the appeal on 18th April, 1991. The owners were still not satisfied & consequently filed the special leave petitions in this Court, for grant of interest Under Section 23A added to the L.A. Act, 1984. The Board claims to have come to know of these proceedings after the Judgment of the High Court & filing of special leave petitions by the claimants &, therefore, it moved applications Under Section 114 & Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the High Court for the review of its order. The application was dismissed on 3rd December, 1992 as it was filed after long delay without proper explanation & even the Court -fee paid was deficient. The High Court observed that even though this was brought to the notice of the Learned Counsel for the Board yet the deficiency was not made good. Another effort was made in 1993 but the Court refused to recall its order as it was not disputed that the Court -fee was not made good for long time & even no application as contemplated under Section 149 of the C.P.C. for extension of time was made.