STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. MOHAN THAKUR
LAWS(JHAR)-2008-8-91
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on August 28,2008

STATE OF JHARKHAND Appellant
VERSUS
MOHAN THAKUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THESE interlocutory applications have been filed for condoning the delay of about two years in filing these appeals, which have been filed against the judgment dated 21 st March, 2005 passed in Land Reference Cases being Land Reference Case Nos. 534 to 542/1991, which were referred by the Collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for re -determination of the compensation because the respective awardees were dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Collector.
(2.) IN the petition for condonation of delay, it is inter alia said that after passing of judgment and obtaining opinion from the Government Pleader, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Tenughat, at Project Hazaribagh vide his letter no. 268 dated 30.7.2005 requested the Additional Collector, Water Resources Department for a direction to file appeals. There is no explanation of the time consumed after the judgment dated 20.8.2004 till 30.7.2005. It is further said that the file moved to various authorities for filing of the appeal and ultimately the file was received in the office of the Advocate General on 19.10.2005. Then file was handed over to Standing Counsel (Land Ceiling) for filing the appeal who requested the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh by letter dated 20th October, 2005 sent by Fax to send a competent person for doing the needful but no one turned up. Then the Fax Messages were sent after seven months i.e. on 15.5.2006 and 14.6.2006 by the Standing Counsel to the Deputy Commissioner. Ultimately, the documents were made available on 16.6.2006 and thereafter this appeal was filed on 21.6.2006. It is true that liberal approach is to be taken while condoning the delay but it is also true that each day's delay has to be explained to the satisfaction of the Court. As indicated above, the aforesaid explanations of delay are wholly unsatisfactory. Limitation Act is not different for the State.
(3.) IN the circumstances, the applications for condoning the delay of about two years are rejected. Accordingly, all these I.As. are rejected and consequently all the First Appeals also stand dismissed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.