BADAL CHANDRA MAHATO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the petitioners submits that vide the impugned orders, the cases under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have been dismissed for default on 14.09.2004, 09.08.2004 and 17.07.2004 in connection with L.A. Case Nos. 67 of 1991, L.A. Case No. 68 of 1991 and L.A. Case No. 69 of 1991 respectively all passed by the learned Sub-Judge II at Saraikella.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioners submits that one opportunity may be granted to these petitioners who are poor displaced persons. By referring to paragraph no. 6 of the writ petition he submits that the petitioner no. 3 who was looking after the said cases had fell ill and suffered from jaundice etc. and thereafter, he did not appear and the learned Advocate who was engaged in the cases also did not appear. Consequently, by the impugned orders the awards passed under Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were confirmed. He reiterates that the petitioners are poor displaced persons and will be highly prejudiced if the impugned orders are not set-aside.

(3.) Considering the fact that these are old cases, counsel for the petitioners submits that they are ready to forgo the claim of statutory interest in connection with the additional compensation, if any, which may be assessed and granted to the petitioners once the cases are restored and learned Court below is directed to decide the case on merits after giving opportunity to the petitioners to place their case on merits. He submits that in order to ensure that no prejudice is caused to the respondents on account of delay caused due to the acts/omissions of the petitioners, he is ready and willing to forgo the claim of statutory interest which the petitioners may be entitled on account of any further relief which may be granted to the petitioners by the Court below.