The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of timely legal remedies, public interest, and the responsibility of government departments to diligently perform their duties.

JUDGMENT

Prasanta Kumar Deka, J. - Heard Mrs. U. Chakraborty, learned Special Senior Counsel for N. F. Railways, applicant. Also heard Mrs. M. D. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the private respondents and Mr. G. Bordoloi, the learned Government Counsel for the respondent No. 4.

2. The LA Appeals arose out of the Land Acquisition Case No. 29/88 and the award therein was put under challenge by the private respondents in Misc. Reference Case Nos. 59/99 to 84/99 (old), Misc. Reference Case No. 17/2014 to 17(XXV)/2014 (new) and the common judgment dated 08.09.2014 was passed by the learned District Judge, Kamrup at Amingaon. The subject matter in the said land acquisition case was the land wherein the requiring department was the N. F. Railways, the present applicant.

3. In the said reference cases [59/99 to 84/99 (old) disposed of on 31.03.2003], the present applicant Railways was not made party and being aggrieved the applicant Railways filed LA Appeal Nos. 1/12 to 31/12 in this Court. The said appeals were disposed of on 26.06.2013 holding that the appellant Railways being the requiring department, for whose purpose the land was acquired, they are person interested within the meaning of Section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and as such entitled to the notice from the Reference Court while deciding the aforesaid reference cases which admittedly were not issued. Accordingly this court in the said LA Appeal Nos. 1/12 to 31/12 set aside the judgment dated 31.03.2003 passed by the Reference Court and the same were remitted to the learned Reference Court (court of District Judge, Kamrup at Amingaon) for giving a fresh decision in the matter. While disposing of the said appeals, this Court directed the parties to the said appeals including the present applicant Railways and the Collector to appear before the Reference Court on 18.07.2013. Further the learned Reference Court was directed to decide the proceedings within a period of three months from the date of order of appearance of the parties as fixed by the appellate court.

4. After the said remand, the learned Reference Court passed the impugned judgment and order dated 08.09.2014. The present appellant Railways being aggrieved challenged the said judgment and order dated 08.09.2014 in the present appeals. In the process of filing the appeals there was delay of 555 days. Along with the said appeals these interlocutory applications were filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of the said delay of 555 days. In the delay condonation applications in order to explain the causes for the delay it is pleaded that as per the direction of this court in LA. Appeal Nos. 1/12 to 31/12, the court notice/notices were issued to the Collector, Kamrup by the learned Reference Court and on the other hand, due to non appearance of the present appellant/applicant, the matter proceeded ex-parte. However, the said Reference Court did not issue notice to the applicant though there was an observation made by the appellate Court while disposing of the LA Appeal Nos. 1/12 to 31/12 that the Railways being the requiring department is a necessary party in the said reference cases.

5. The Railways came to know of the judgment and order of the learned Reference Court after the remand only on the basis of the letter dated 12.06.2015 issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Amingaon in order to satisfy the enhanced award. Being aggrieved by the said enhanced award on the basis of the judgment and order dated 08.09.2014 of the Reference Court, the concerned Law Officer of the Railways sought the advice of the Railway Advocate. At first one of the counsel for the Railways advised for accepting the judgment and order instead of filing appeal. However, the applicant Railways was not satisfied with the said opinion and sought for a second opinion from the present conducting counsel. The learned counsel opined on 27.08.2015 to file appeal against the judgment of the Reference