JUDGMENT

This appeal arises out of the judgment dated

20.06.2025 in AS No.86 of 2023 of the District Court, Ernakulam refusing to condone the delay of 116 days in filing the appeal.

2. O.S No.267 of 2018 was instituted by the appellants seeking for injunction restraining the respondents from initiating any measures under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 , without conducting a proper valuation in respect of their building. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed in the above suit. The Commissioner inspected the property and filed his report along with the valuation. At that point of time, the defendants raised a preliminary objection that the suit is barred under Section 63 of the Act. The trial court accepting the aforesaid objection, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred A.S. No.86 of 2023 along with an application for condonation of delay of 116 days. By order dated 20.06.2025, the District Court, Ernakulam rejected the application for condonation of delay and consequently, dismissed the appeal which is impugned in the present appeal.

3. Heard Sri.Divakaran R., the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri.K. Denny Devassy, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

4. On considering the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, this Court finds that no substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal. Although, this Court is not satisfied with the reasoning given by the District Court, Ernakulam in rejecting the application for the condonation of delay, this Court is of the considered view that no useful purpose will be served even if this Court interferes with the order passed in the interlocutory application. This is primarily for the reason that the jurisdiction of civil court is barred under Section 63 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 , 5. The learned Counsel for the appellants would however submit that the only reason why they instituted the suit was to solicit a valuation report in respect of the building. Pursuant to the proceedings taken under the aforementioned Act, the property has already been taken in possession and an award has been passed.

6. Aggrieved by the award, the appellant has sought for a reference under Section 64 of the Act before the authority and the same is pending as L.A.R. No.10/2019. It is further submitted that the report of the Advocate Commissioner is of a great evidentiary value for the appellants and since the suit is dismissed, the appellants will be precluded from adducing further evidence in the reference before the authority seeking enhancement of the compensation.

7. This Court is of the considered opinion that it is always open for the appellants to adduce evidence in the reference, which is pending before the authority by producing the certified copy of the report of the Advocate Commissioner along with the valuation report given by the Chief Engineer and examine the signatory to the said report in order to substantiate his claim for enhancement. Therefore, for that purpose alone, the appeal need not be restored and a decision on merits be invited.

In the above circumstance, this Court finds that in the light of the specific bar under Section 63 of the Act, no substantial questions of law arise for consideration in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed subject to the liberty granted by this Court to the appellants as above.