STATE OF J&K Vs. AMJID HUSSAIN ANSARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PROCEEDINGS for acquisition of land measuring 122 kanals 13 Marlas situate at Sharief Abad, District Budgam were initiated by Collector of Power Development Department for construction of Grid Station. Notice under Section 4 for said acquisition had been issued previously by the then Collector under No. 66067 dated April 18, 1989 initially for 264 kanals 16 Marlas of land for Gas Turbine which was later modified to restrict the acquisition to 122 kanals 13 Marlas of land only as aforesaid. Vide his order no. 1403 -07 dated February 2, 1995, concerned Collector recommended per kanal rates which was approved by competent authority whereupon per kanal rate of Rs. 55,731/34600 was awarded for the acquired land. Feeling aggrieved and accepting compensation under protest respondent herein appears to have represented before concerned Collector for making a reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act to the District Judge for enhancement of compensation which appears to have been done vide reference No. LA -PDD/MHPs/324 -40 dated June 3, 1998 received in the District Court on June 9, 1998 whereupon proceedings were conducted which finally culminated into the reference decree passed by learned District Judge wherein compensation in respect of 51 Kanal 5 Marlas of land acquired from the present respondent was enhanced to Rs.

(2.) ,00,000 per kanal alongwith Rs. 3,44,437 for fruit bearing trees and Rs. 1,44,000 for sheds amounting in all to Rs. 10738437 over which solatium of Rs. 3221531 was added @ 30% alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of order till realization of the amount. 2. Grounds pleaded to assail the award are that the same has been passed by reference court without impleading the Indenting -Department as a party which should necessarily have been done before commencement of proceedings and that without proper service of notice/summons upon appellants the award was passed ex parte against them which burdens the State exchequer with a huge liability even while there was no cause or ground for enhancement of compensation.

(3.) VIDE interim order dated May 29, 2003 the first appellant, namely, Indenting Department has been held to be competent to institute the appeal which being belated in the point of time was also accompanied by an application for condonation of delay involved in institution of the appeal which appears to have been dismissed in default on March 20, 2002 but proceedings in main appeal continued with both parties appearing in the matter. The question of condoning the delay, however, appears to have resurfaced with respondents application being CMP no. 420/2003 for declaration of instant appeal as time barred and its consequent dismissal on the ground that delay involved in appeal could not be condoned in the instant case. In interim order dated December 22, 2003 covering the main appeal as also aforesaid CMP the Court directed that the CMP would be heard alongwith appeal and revision petition no. 43/2000 connected herewith finally and posted matter for hearing in last week of February, 2004. On May 13, 2004 in terms of interim order of that date, the appeal was "considered" and "admitted" to hearing with a direction to process and schedule it as such. Order admitting the appeal as such by -necessary implication takes into its sway the respondents aforesaid CMP no. 420/2003 invoking the question of limitation also and virtually condones the same by admitting the appeal to hearing notwithstanding dismissal of COD no. 187/2000 in default restoration petition regarding which was pending on the date appeal was admitted to hearing which, therefore, also would stand allowed by necessary implication in terms of that order followed by the implied condonation of delay. Otherwise also, it would be strange to talk about delay in institution of an admitted appeal after its half a decade long pendency for hearing.