IMPORTANT POINT
SLP must be verified by AOR and it should not be filed in a casual, negligent or routine manner.
There is urgent need to streamline decision making process so as to avoid delay in filing SLP.
Land owners must get due compensation promptly.

R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J.

( 1 ) THIS case relates to acquisition of 1 acre 13 guntas of land belonging to respondents 1 and 2. Notification under section 4 (1) of the land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 20. 12. 1990. The land Acquisition Officer, by award dated 11. 9. 1991, assessed the compensation at Rs. 4,000/- per acre. The reference court, by award dated 10. 3. 2005, increased the compensation to Rs. 30,420/-per acre, by capitalizing the agricultural income from the crops of jowar and tur. The petitioner filed an appeal, contending that the compensation was excessive. The said appeal was dismissed by the first appellate court on 23. 12. 2005. The second appeal by the petitioner was also dismissed by the High court on 26. 10. 2007. By this petition, the petitioner seeks special leave to appeal against the said judgment. Drafting of Special Leave Petition

( 2 ) THE petition states that the following "questions of law of general importance" arise for consideration :

(i) Whether the High Court was right in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner without considering the merits of the case, only on the ground that there is delay in filing the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the application for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 1 pn record? (ii) Whether the High Court was right in dismissing the appeal even without considering the application for condonation of delay in filing the application for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased respondents on record, when the petitioner has explained the delay in filing with cogent reasons which constitutes sufficient cause as contemplated under section 5 of the Limitation Act? (iii) Whether the High Court was right in dismissing the appeal without appreciating the fact that the separate value for fodder cannot be taken into account for determination of market value of the land. 2. 1. Strangely none of these questions relates to this case nor arise in this case. Neither of the claimants-respondents died, though question (i) gives an impression that first respondent had died and question (ii) gives an impression that both respondents died during the pendency of the appeal before the high Court. No application was filed either for bringing the legal representatives of any respondent on record, or for condoning the delay in filing such application. Nor did the high Court refer to or take into consideration the value of fodder separately for determination of compensation, as stated in question (iii ).

( 3 ) WE may next turn to the grounds on which leave to appeal is sought. The only two grounds mentioned in the special leave petition are extracted below:

"5. 1: It is submitted that the Hon'ble High court misdirected itself on facts and in law which has resulted in the passing of an erroneous order and the same is liable to be set aside. 5. 2: It is submitted that the petitioner herein had acquired the land in Sy. No. 139/3 (Dry)measuring 01-13 situated at Magangere under Section 4 (1) Notification dated 20. 12. 1990 and the award is passed on 10. 3. 2c05 determining the market value at rs. 4,000/- per acre. The respondents, being not satisfied with the said amount, filed a petition under Section 18 (1) of the land Acquisition Act for enhancement. The reference Court, after registering the case in L. A. C. No. 907/2000 and after hearing the parties, enhanced the compensation amount from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 30,420/-dated 10. 3. 2005. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the same, filed L. A. C. Appeal nos. 67 and 68 of 2005. The learned II! addl. District Judge, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal by the judgment dated 23. 12. 2005 in L. A. C. No. 67/20q5. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner presented the above miscellaneous Second Appeal No. 121/ 2005 (before the High Court ). " 3. 1. The first para contains a standard ground usually incorporated in appeals/special leave petitions. The second para is not a groun