S.C. Mohapatra, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Memorandum of appeal has been accompanied by an application for leave to appeal and another application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act supported by affidavit. Counter -affidavit in objection has been filed by Respondent and rejoinder -affidavit has also been filed by Appellant. When claimants took steps for recovery of the awarded amount, an application for stay of execution proceeding was filed with an application to take up the matter urgently. Considering the urgency when the appeal was listed for orders, with consent of parties appeal was heard along with stay application as well as application for condonation of delay since parties expressed that they are in possession of copies of all relevant documents and in case delay is condoned, appeal can be finally disposed of with those documents, without calling for records of the lower court and without preparation of paper books.
(2.) LAND in dispute was acquired for the Appellant by the State Government for the purpose of construction of III Telephone Exchange in the city of Varanasi for which Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 14.9.1988. After considering statement of claimants. Land Acquisition Collector made an award under Section 11 of the Act and thereafter took possession on 24.7.1989. Claimants received compensation under protest and requested for a reference to determine the compensation to be paid as they were claiming compensation at enhanced rate. Reference was made and impugned award was made under Section 26 of the Act on 19.4.1990. Coming to know of the award on 14.3.1991 Appellant took steps and filed appeal on 23.5.1991. Delay is explained to be on account of lack of knowledge and period spent to take steps. Respondents in counter -affidavit asserted that Appellant has knowledge of the reference proceeding from the stage of making reference by the Collector and on account of negligence, appeal was filed late which ought not to be condoned. Land Acquisition Collector made the reference on 3.8.1989. On 7.12.1989 Collector sent all the papers with reference with a forwarding letter to District Judge with' copy to District Government Pleader (Civil) and District Manager, Telecommunication. No steps appear to have been taken by Telecommunication Manager thereafter an award under Section 26 was made on 19.4.1990. This information can be treated to be information to Appellant. But there was no legal obligation for Appellant to appear in the reference. If it believed that Collector can effectively support his award before referring court through the District Government Counsel (Civil), no blame can be put that it was negligent. When Appellant was to deposit the compensation with the Collector for payment to claimants, it was obligation of the Collector and the District Government Counsel to intimate Appellant about the award under Section 26 of the Act immediately. There is no assertion that Collector or District Government Counsel discharged their obligation. in such circumstances, lack of knowledge of Appellant till 14.3.1991 as asserted by Appellant can be accepted and is a sufficient cause for condonation of delay till that date. Case of Appellant that after getting information, it took opinion of the District Government Pleader on 30.4.91. Rightly it is submitted by learned Counsel for claimants that delay of each day should have been explained and there is no explanation for the period between 14.3.1991 to 30.4.1991. If we take a rigid view, appeal is to be dismissed for non -explanation of action taken during this period as steps taken on getting information on 14.3.1991 was within the knowledge of the Appellant. Learned Counsel for Appellant ought to have advised Appellant in this respect since officers of Appellant, who are normally technical officers are not well versed with niceties of the legal position. For mistake of the legal advisor, we are not inclined to penalise the Appellant as we find that subsequent to 30.4.1991 Appellant was vigilant allowing a little play in the Joint in working of departmental machinery and period taken till 23.5.1991 is a reasonable period. in the circumstances, we condone delay subject to condition that Appellant shall pay Rs. 2,500 as costs to claimants to mitigate their grievance of taking away a valuable right of finality of the award. This amount can be realised by execution if not paid earlier. Appellant at its end can realise the amount paid as costs from the delinquents on whose account there was delay by following due procedure of law so that exchequer does not suffer for inaction of officers.
(3.) ;