The legal representatives of the claimant filed the present appeal against the judgment and award dated 15-06-2011 made in LACA No.56/2010 on the file of the IV Addl. District Judge, Gulbarga, dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay of 1944 days in filing the appeal.

Facts of the case.

2. It is the case of the claimant that he is the owner of the land bearing Survey No.3/6 measuring 1 acre 3 guntas dry land situated at Belkota Taluka, Gulbarga District. The said land was submerged under Gandori Nala Project. The respondents issued preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 31.07.1997 and followed by final notification under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, respondent No.3 has awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/- per acre dry land with all statutory benefits on 05-05-2000. Not satisfied with the award, the present appellant/claimant filed reference petition under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, before the Principal Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gulbarga. Who after hearing both the parties by judgment and award dated 09.09.2004 has enhanced compensation of Rs.53,550/- per acre dry land with all statutory benefits. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the claimant filed appeal before the IV Additional District Judge, Gulbarga under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, who after hearing both the parties has dismissed the appeal, mainly on the ground that there was a delay of 1944 in filing the appeal. Hence the present appeal filed.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.

4. Sri. A.M. Biradar, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Additional District Judge has dismissed the appeal mainly on the ground of delay and latches without adverting to the case on merits only on technicalities. He contended that when the substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. He further contended that in an identical circumstances the land acquired for the same purpose, this court in MFA 1525/2007 has enhanced the compensation of Rs.1,15,600/- per acre to the dry land. Therefore mere technicality, the claimant should not deprived which he is entitled legally, since he lost the land for the project. Therefore he sought to allow the present appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and award.

5. Per contra, Smt. Archana Tiwari, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.3 and Sri. Gourish S. Khashampur, learned counsel for respondent No.2, sought to justify the impugned judgment and award passed by the appellate court and contended that the present appellants were watching the other persons when, the other persons got the enhanced compensation, he filed the present appeal before the lower appellate court. Since there was a delay of 1944 days, the lower court has rightly dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay and latches. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 and 3 further contended that merely because, some other land, for the same project has granted Rs.1,15,600/- per acre is not a ground to allow the appeal, since there is a delay of nearly 6 years in filing the appeal. Therefore sought for dismissal of the present appeal. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 and 3 sought to rely upon the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Brijesh Kumar and others V/s State of Haryana and others, reported in AIR 2014 SC 1612.

6. In view of the aforesaid rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration in the present appeal is:-

“Whether the impugned judgment and award passed by the IV Addl. District Judge, Gulbarga dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay and latches is justified in the facts circumstances of the pre