2013 Supreme(J&K) 106
JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Muzaffar Hussain Attar, J.
Union of India -Appellant
Versus
Abdul Ahad Kuttoo & Ors. -Resopndent
Cond. of Delay 491/2012, LA. No. 492/2012 c/w CIA. No. 149/2012
Decided On : 01-03-2013
Mr. S.A. Makroo, ASGI for the Appellant.
Condonation of delay in filing the appeal due to lack of notice, lack of proper advice, and public interest.
Headnote:
Delay in Filing Appeal - Land Acquisition - The court allowed the application and condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the appellant not being impleaded as a party, lack of proper advice from the previous counsel, and the pending appeal filed by the respondents.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, who was not impleaded as a party, sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal due to lack of notice and proper advice from the previous counsel.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the application and condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the circumstances and public interest involved.
Issues: Delay in filing the appeal, lack of notice to the appellant, and lack of proper advice from the previous counsel.
Ratio Decidendi: The delay in filing the appeal was condoned due to the appellant not being impleaded as a party, lack of proper advice from the previous counsel, and the pending appeal filed by the respondents.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application and condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The appeal was disposed of and listed along with connected CMP(s).
2. Objections have not been filed.
3. The applicant-appellant, the intending department, was not impleaded as party by the Civil Court, to which, reference was made under Section 18 of the State Land Acquisition Act by the Collector. The Civil Court enhanced the compensation amount which was assessed and fixed by the Collector.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it is the appellant, who has been saddled with the responsibility of paying enhanced compensation without affording opportunity of being heard.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted, and same is pleaded in the application also that cross appeal was filed by the respondents in respect of the same award, in which the this Court suo-moto ordered for impleadment of DEO as party respondent vide its order dated 14th March, 2007. Learned counsel submitted, that the counsel, who was representing the applicant-appellant, did not inform the applicant-appellant about this development, thus even at that point of time, the applicant could not get the knowledge of the impugned award. It is submitted that the said appeal is still pending. It is pleaded as also submitted at bar that the applicant-appellant got the knowledge on 16th April, 2007. Learned counsel sub#31;mitted, that the counsel, who was representing the appellant in 2007, misguided the applicant-appellant by advising them only to file application in the pending appeal and did not advise for filing of appeal. Learned counsel submitted that acting bonafide on advise of earlier counsel, the appeal could not be filed within time. Learned counsel further submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate.
6. This application deserves to be allowed for the following reasons:-
a. The impugned judgement has been passed against the applicant-appellant, though he was not a party in the proceedings and judgement has been passed without notice to him;
b. The counsel, who was representing the applicant/appellant earlier had not properly advised them, which resulted in delay in filing of the appeal;
c. The appeal filed by the respondents in respect of the impugned jugement is pending on the files of this Court;
d. The delay in filing the appeal in these circumstances is neither intentional nor deliberate. Public interest is involved, the appeal would require to be decided on its merits.
7. This Application is, accordingly, allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
8. Disposed of.
9. List the appeal alongwith connected CMP(s).