A government body cannot benefit from its own negligence; explanations for condonation of delay must be reasonable, and inordinate delay jeopardizes the rights of others.

JUDGMENT :

Re: CAN 1 of 2025

1. There is a delay of 3900 days in preferring the appeal. The inordinate delay in preferring the appeal has not been sufficiently explained in the application for condonation of delay. The valuable right has accrued in favour of the legal heirs of the original claimant. They cannot be deprived of the benefits of the award dated 7^th August, 2014, passed in connection with the Land Acquisition case arising out of a reference under Section 18 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT I of 1894.

2. The referring claimant is the respondent in the appeal. The lands of the referring claimant were acquired by the L.A. Collector, Burdwan in connection with L.A. Case No.15(IV)/1995-1996, vide Notification dated 25.11.1997 for construction of Housing Scheme at Mouza-Alisha. The admitted position is that the acquired lands were classified as 'Sali' and the said lands were of Mouza – Alisha. The L.A. Collector awarded a sum of Rs.26,509/- as compensation for the acquisition of the plot of land No.74 of Mouza–Alisha, J.L. No.77 measuring 0.1075 acre.

3. The referring claimant was dissatisfied with the said compensation amount and has made a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act before the learned Additional District Judge, 3^rd Court, Burdwan, being L.A. Case No.02/2001. The Executive Officer, Zilla Parisad of Burdwan and the Executive Officer, B.D.A., Burdwan, contested the reference. The requiring bodies were made parties. The learned Additional District Judge on consideration of the materials on record and relying upon comparable units enhanced the compensation amount along with statutory interest. The said judgment was pronounced on 7^th August, 2014.

4. The memorandum of appeal was filed on 13^th August, 2025 with a prayer for condonation of delay. The Additional Stamp Reporter has reported that there is a delay of 3900 days in preferring the appeal. In the application for condonation of delay, the following explanations were offered for not being able to prefer the appeal within the period of limitation:-

“7. That the concerned officer of the appellant during the relevant period, when the award was passed in respect of the land in question as acquired under Act 1 of 1894 and subsequent to passing the impugned judgement and decree, the said officials have been transferred time to time and due to change of the officials of the appellant, who used to deal with the above Land Acquisition matters sought for legal opinion of the Learned Government Pleader, the then Burdwan thereafter the appellant send his subordinate officials to deal with the aforesaid cases to the Department of Legal Remembrancer, Government of West Bengal with a request for engagement of Learned State Advocate in filing appeal arising out of the L.A. Case being No.74/110 of 2007/2006.

8. That during the relevent time, District Bardhaman was divided in two parts, i.e. Purba Bardhaman and Paschim Bardhaman by the Gazette Notification vide 80/AR/O/2R-3/12 dated 24/03/2017 with effect from 07^th April, 2017 as such in the meantime, office was heavily engaged in its administrative function to pursue before Department of Legal Remembrancer, Government of West Bengal with a request for engagement of Learned State Advocate in filing appeal.

This office sent status report to Purba Bardhaman Zilla 1738/ LA /Law Parishad vide Cell/RC/65/136/08/17 dated 19.07.2017 and then sent a request to the Purba Bardhaman Zilla Parishnd seeking suitable action toward mitigating the four Execution Cases in view of previously discussed amicable settlements in ear