Legal representatives cannot re-agitate disputes over compensation post-finality; delay in appeal without compelling justification is not condoned.

JUDGMENT :

V.SRISHANANDA, J.

Legal representatives of the claimant by name H.D.Lokeshaiah are the appellants in this appeal, challenging the inadequacy of the compensation granted for the land in Sy.No.125/1 to the extent of 13 guntas which contained 21 coconut trees and one neem tree, situated at Halanuru village, Kasaba Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk, which was acquired for the purpose of construction of Hemavathi Canal.

2. Being aggrieved by the inadequate compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, claimant Lokeshaiah filed an application under Section 18 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT before the Reference Court for fixation of the adequate compensation in respect of the acquired land.

3. Learned Judge in the Reference Court after securing the records held an enquiry with regard to the claim of the claimant and taking into consideration the order passed in LAC No.259/2006, re-fixed the value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.4,757/- per gunta and in respect of 21 coconut trees and one neem tree, awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.5,000/- for coconut tree and Rs.10,000/- for neem tree.

4. Pertinently, Lokeshaiah did not place any oral or documentary evidence on record and all that the Reference Court has done is to re-fix the compensation at the rate of Rs.4767/- per gunta as against sum of Rs.1000/- per gunta fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, based on the award passed in LAC No.259/2006 in respect of the same project.

5. The acquisition is on 24.01.2004 vide notification No.LAQ:SR:36/03-04.

6. Lokeshaiah received the enhanced/re-fixed compensation during his life time and did not choose to file further appeal on the question of adequacy of compensation during his life time.

7. However, legal representatives of Lokeshaiah filed a belated appeal before the First Appellate Court which was numbered as R.A.No.109/2022.

8. Pertinently award passed by the Reference Court in LAC No.258/2006 is on 6^th October 2016.

9. The learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after notifying the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the Chief Engineer of Hemavathi Canal Zone, held an enquiry with regard to the condonation of delay of more than five years in filing the appeal that too by legal representatives of Lokeshaiah – original claimant.

10. In the enquiry, the appellant No.1 Smt. Sharanambike M, who is the wife of Lokeshaiah got examined herself as A.W.1 and filed an application along with affidavit.

11. On her behalf two documents were placed on record which were marked as Exs.A.1 and A.2.On behalf of the respondent there was no contra evidence either oral or documentary placed on record.

12. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court has raised the following points:

“1. Whether appellants have made out grounds to condone the delay in preferring this appeal?

2. Whether the impugned judgment and award calls for any interference from this Court”

13. After so considering the relevant oral and documentary evidence on record, learned Judge in the First Appellate Court in paragraphs 15 to 18 of its judgment has discussed the contents of the affidavit which were contrary to the factual aspects involved in the case, which reads as under:

“15. It is worthy to note that, along with Appeal Memorandum, appellants have filed an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, seeking to condone delay of 6 years in filing the appeal. In the affidavit annexed to the I.A., the deponent has contended that, “I have filed a reference petition against the respondent for enhancement of compensation. After issuance of summons by the Hon'b