Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AURANGABAD BENCH
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Sainath Devrao Janjal – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 8328, 8329, 8333, 8334, 8338, 8339, 8341, 8960, 8963, 8989 of 2022
Decided On : 18-11-2022
Delay Condonation - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 64 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 64 of the Act of 2013 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 64 of the Act of 2013, which allows a person to make an application for determination of enhanced compensation. The court highlighted the timelines and the authority's power to condone delay up to a maximum period of one year. The judgment also emphasized that the authority cannot condone delay beyond the maximum statutory period.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the rejection of their references for enhancement of compensation by the Sub Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Sillod, citing delay beyond the maximum period specified under Section 64 of the Act of 2013. The petitioners argued that the delay should have been condoned due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applications filed by the petitioners were not only barred by limitation but were also beyond the maximum period during which the delay could have been condoned. The court rejected the pretext of the Covid-19 pandemic as the maximum condonable period had expired before the pandemic started.
Issues: The main issue was whether the authority under Section 64 of the Act of 2013 could condone delay beyond the maximum period prescribed under that section, considering the peculiar circumstances of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the authority cannot condone delay beyond the maximum statutory period, as prescribed by Section 64 of the Act of 2013. The court also emphasized that the pretext of the Covid-19 pandemic sought to be put forth by the petitioners was totally misplaced and required rejection.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, finding them devoid of merits, and refrained from imposing costs on the petitioners despite their conduct warranting imposition of costs.
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, called out for final hearing. Mr. S.G. Sangle, learned advocate waives notice for respondent No. 5 in all the matters. Mrs. Geeta L. Deshpande, Mr. K.B. Jadhvar and Mr. K.N. Lokhande, learned AGPs waive service on behalf of respondent-State in the respective matters.
2. A short issue that invites attention of this Court in this petition is whether the authority under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 2013’) can condone delay beyond the maximum period prescribed under that section. The issue arises on account of challenge set up by petitioners to the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Sillod dated 25.04.2022 by which it is held that the references filed by petitioners were beyond the maximum period specified under Section 64 of the Act of 2013 and therefore the same have been rejected.
3. Brief facts of the case are that, Section 4 notification in respect of the lands of petitioners was published on 07.12.2012 and the Award was declared on 12.11.2018. Petitioners were issued notice for payment of compensation under Section 21 of the Act of 2013 on 19.11.2018. Petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 13763 of 2018 alleging non-payment of compensation, which was disposed of on 30.01.2020 directing drawl of panchanama at the time of taking possession of the lands and granting liberty to petitioners to avail appropriate remedy for grant of enhanced compensation. On 21.01.2022, notice for possession was issued. Petitioners made application for payment of compensation on 25.02.2020. On 20.04.2020, they received the amounts of their respective compensation. On 27.08.2020 they filed references under Section 64 of the Act of 2013 for enhancement of compensation. By order dated 25.04.2022 the Sub Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Sillod has rejected the references on the ground of limitation.
4. Mr. Jayabhar, the learned counsel for petitioners submits that the Sub Divisional Officer ought to have condoned the delay in filing the references considering the peculiar circumstances of Covid-19 pandemic. He further submits that the Award was published on 12.11.2018 and that the references could have been filed within six months by 12.05.2019. He further submits that under Proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 64, the Sub-Divisional Officer had power to condone the delay of further one year i.e. upto 12.05.2020. That the references were filed on 27.08.2020 after receiving compensation in April-2020.
5. Mr. Jayabhar relies upon several orders passed by the Apex Court extending the period of limitation on account of Covid-19 pandemic and submits that since the maximum condonable period fell within the period of pandemic, the same was required to be condoned. In support of this contention, Mr. Jayabhar relies upon the judgment of Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in N.C. Uthupu @ Benny vs. Union of India and Others, Writ Petition (C) No. 29190 of 2021 decided on 05.01.2022.
6. Mr. Jayabhar further seeks to rely upon provisions of Section 63 of the Act of 2013 in support of his contention that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain any dispute relating to land acquisition and therefore this Court can otherwise condone the delay in filing the references. Lastly Mr. Jayabhar submits that petitioners are willing to forgo interest on enhanced amount of compensation for the entire period of delay. In support of his contentions, Mr. Jayabhar relies upon order of this Court in Lahu Arjuna Patil and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, W.P. No. 9644 of 2016 decided on 25.01.2018. He also relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another vs. Mst. Katiji and others, AIR 1987 SC 1353.
7. Per contra, Mrs. Deshpande, the learn
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the authority cannot condone delay beyond the maximum statutory period as prescribed by the relevant provisions of the Act of 2013.
Collector empowered under proviso to Section 64(2)(b) of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 to condone delay in reference applications up to one year if sufficient cause shown; must consider causes like lockdown and....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellant must provide a reasonable and plausible explanation, absence of negligence or malafides, and legal and adequate reasons to condo....
The court held that appeals filed beyond 120 days without sufficient cause cannot be entertained, emphasizing equal standards for government and private parties in legal proceedings.
The court emphasized that while a liberal approach is generally applied in condoning delays under the Limitation Act, lack of sufficient cause, particularly evident inactivity, precludes such discret....
Person Aggrieved May File Appeal - Under S.74 of the 2013 Act, it has been provided that a person aggrieved, may file appeal in the High Court within 60 days of passing of an award.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the law of limitation has to be applied with rigor, and a satisfactory explanation is required for condonation of delay.
(1) Law of limitation is founded on public policy – Appeal which is preferred after expiry of limitation is liable to be dismissed.(2) Bar of limitation – Delay is not liable to be condoned merely be....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
