Central Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Rukmini Devi & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 7062-7084 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 17454-17476/2002)
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 17454-17476/2002)
Petitioner: Central Coalfields Ltd.
Respondent: Rukmini Devi & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 7062-7084 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 17454-17476/2002)
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 17454-17476/2002)
Judges: G.B. PATTANAIK, SHIVARAJ V. PATIL & S.B. SINHA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 28, 2002
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Constitution
Article 136 with Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 54 – Interference – Appeal against orders of reference court – Dismissal due to delay – Appellant being interested party moving LPA, which initially entertained but ultimately dismissed – SLP filed. Held that on facts, appellant should be allowed to pursue the appeal. Respondents to be compensated. Parties allowed to ask for deposit etc. (Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. In a land acquisition proceeding against the order of the reference court the appeal was filed by the state under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. That appeal stood dismissed by the learned single judge for nonpayment of the requisite court fee. An application for restoration was filed by the state of Bihar which also stood dismissed. The central coalfields is the authority for whom the acquisition was intended and the coalfields, on being aware of the same, filed application for permission to pursue the matter and filed a letters patent appeal before the division bench. The division bench being of the opinion that there was sufficient cause for delay in filing appeal, condoned the delay in filing the appeal and directed for hearing the same on the next date. When the matter was thereafter listed on the next date, i.e., on 19.3.2002, the bench hearing the appeal took into consideration the earlier laches on the part of the state of Bihar as well as the central coalfields and dismissed the appeal. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned additional solicitor general appearing for the appellant contends that in the impugned order, the earlier order of the division bench dated 18.2.2002 has not been noticed by the court which resulted in the ultimate dismissal of the letters patent appeal. Learned additional solicitor general further contends that the coalfields being the real interested party, in the absence of the coalfields, determination of the compensation would be invalid and therefore, in the interest of justice the appellant-coalfields should be permitted to pursue the appeal filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act.
3. Ms. Hema Sahu, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contends that there has been gross laches on the part of the appellant and further the amount of compensation determined by the reference court has not been deposited or paid and therefore, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 need not be invoked at the behest of the appellant.
4. Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, we think it appropriate that the central coalfields should get an opportunity of assailing the order of the reference court by preferring an appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is true that the respondents are unduly harassed but they can be duly compensated by payment of cost. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the division bench as well as that of the learned single judge and direct that the appellant is permitted to prefer appeal assailing the order/award of the reference court and that may be done from four weeks from today. On such an appeal being filed, the court would examine the contentions raised and dispose of the same in accordance with law. This order would be subject to payment of Rs. 25,000/- as cost within the period of two weeks from today. On appeal being entertained, it would be open for the parties to seek for appropriate direction with regard to deposit of the amount in question.
5. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
*****************
1. Leave granted.
2. In a land acquisition proceeding against the order of the reference court the appeal was filed by the state under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. That appeal stood dismissed by the learned single judge for nonpayment of the requisite court fee. An application for restoration was filed by the state of Bihar which also stood dismissed. The central coalfields is the authority for whom the acquisition was intended and the coalfields, on being aware of the same, filed application for permission to pursue the matter and filed a letters patent appeal before the division bench. The division bench being of the opinion that there was sufficient cause for delay in filing appeal, condoned the delay in filing the appeal and directed for hearing the same on the next date. When the matter was thereafter listed on the next date, i.e., on 19.3.2002, the bench hearing the appeal took into consideration the earlier laches on the part of the state of Bihar as well as the central coalfields and dismissed the appeal. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned additional solicitor general appearing for the appellant contends that in the impugned order, the earlier order of the division bench dated 18.2.2002 has not been noticed by the court which resulted in the ultimate dismissal of the letters patent appeal. Learned additional solicitor general further contends that the coalfields being the real interested party, in the absence of the coalfields, determination of the compensation would be invalid and therefore, in the interest of justice the appellant-coalfields should be permitted to pursue the appeal filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act.
3. Ms. Hema Sahu, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contends that there has been gross laches on the part of the appellant and further the amount of compensation determined by the reference court has not been deposited or paid and therefore, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 need not be invoked at the behest of the appellant.
4. Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, we think it appropriate that the central coalfields should get an opportunity of assailing the order of the reference court by preferring an appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is true that the respondents are unduly harassed but they can be duly compensated by payment of cost. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the division bench as well as that of the learned single judge and direct that the appellant is permitted to prefer appeal assailing the order/award of the reference court and that may be done from four weeks from today. On such an appeal being filed, the court would examine the contentions raised and dispose of the same in accordance with law. This order would be subject to payment of Rs. 25,000/- as cost within the period of two weeks from today. On appeal being entertained, it would be open for the parties to seek for appropriate direction with regard to deposit of the amount in question.
5. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
*****************
