BIHARSTATEELECTRICITYBOARD Vs. PRABHA AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The review application has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 15-10-93 passed in F.A. No. 35 of 88, which was allowed along with FA No. 35 of 88, which was allowed along with F.A No. 33 of 88 by a common judgment and order.

(2.) The said appeals were filed against the judgment and award dated 14-12-81 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Judge, Darhhanga in L.A. Case Nos. 740 and 739 of 1978. By the judgment under review this Court held the appellant-opposite Ist party to be entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per latha from the date of taking over possession of the land in question and also for statutory compensation at the rate of 30% on the enhanced amount and interest at the rate of 9% on the unpaid amount and to that extent modified the judgment and award of the special Judge. The judgment under Review was delivered on the 15th October, 1993 and the present review application was filed on 6th July, 1995 along with the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the aforesaid petition. In the said petition it is stated that the petitioners were not impleaded as parties either before the Collector or the Special Land Acquisition Judge, Darbhanga, nor before this Court in F.A. No. 35/88. As such, they had no knowledge about the order/decree passed by this Court and on receipt of letter from the District Land Acquisition Officer, dated 25-10-94 about the deposit of the decretal amount in pursuance of the decree of this Court, the petitioner No. 2, vide letter dated 20-12-94 informed the petitioner No. 1 about the judgment and decree under review. It is further stated that on receipt of the said letters files were processed in the office of petitioner No. 1 and necessary orders and information from the competent authorities were sought, which took time. However, it is admitted that chirkut was filed on 21-1-95 for obtaining certified copy of the order and decree in the FA. No. 35/88, which could only be obtained on 13-3-95 and again it took about four months' time to process the matter in the various offices including obtaining legal opinion.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite Ist party, in which it is stated that the acquisition of her land has been made for and at the instance of the applicants and as such, they were aware of the proceedings, but deliberately chose not to come forward and plead their case either before the Collector or any subsequently proceedings arising therefrom. It is further stated that they were not impleaded as parties in F.A. No. 35/88 as they were not parties before the Special Land Acquisition Judge, before whom reference has been made by the Collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The notifications under the Act were made on 1-5-76. The Collector's award was made on 11-9-76 and the opposite party accepted the compensation awarded under protest on 13-9-76 and prayed for referring the matter to the court under Section 18. Thereafter, the opposite second party took possession of the land and handed over the same to the applicants. It is contended that the applicants have failed to explain satisfactorily each day's delay even from 21-1-95 to 6-7- 95 and are themselves responsible for their deliberate laches on their part.