BANISHA TARIANG Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST JAINTIA HILLS DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Civil Revision Petition is directed against the impugned orders dtd. 13/12/2019 and 19/12/2019, passed by the Court of the Special Judicial Officer, West Jaintia Hills District, Jowai, dismissing the condonation and substitution applications filed by the petitioner and thereafter disposing of the main LA. (J) Case No. 54 of 2015 on the ground of abatement on the death of the claimant.

(2.) The brief facts of the case is that by Notification No. RDA. 34/81/378 dtd. 28/1/1999, under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Government of Meghalaya notified that the land of the petitioner's father (L) M.J. Garod and others was needed by the respondent No. 2 for construction of the Kupli Hydel Project at Saphai Village, Elaka Raliang, Jaintia Hills District. Thereafter, after subsequent notification under the Act, the petitioner's father was called upon to receive the compensation for the acquired land of 1750 sq.mtrs. and 1000 sq.mtrs. amounting to Rs.37,159.00 and Rs.21,234.00 respectively. The petitioner's father accepted the compensation amount along with other land owners under protest and filed applications under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for reference to court for enhancement. Thereafter, on the reference being made, the petitioner's father filed his claim petition in the year 2015, before the court of the Special Judicial Officer, Meghalaya, Shillong. The said claim petition, on the separation of the Judiciary from the Executive in West Jaintia Hills District, was transferred to the court of Special Judicial Officer, West Jaintia Hills District, Jowai, and was renumbered as LA. (J) Case No. 54 of 2015. The petitioner's father expired on 1/2/2010, and the petitioner at that point of time had no knowledge of the pendency of the land acquisition case, and became aware of the same, only after she received a notice dtd. 21/8/2018, whereafter, she filed a substitution application before the court on 12/11/2018. As there was a delay of 3117 days in filing the substitution application, the petitioner also filed a condonation application which was registered as Misc. Case No. 30 of 2018.

(3.) The respondent No. 2 to these applications for substitution and condonation, filed a show cause primarily on the ground that Sec. 53 of the LA Act, 1894, provided that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure would be applicable to the proceedings before the Special Judicial Officer and as such, it was contended that the substitution application would have to be filed within the stipulated period of 90 days, and the same not having been done so, the suit had abated.