IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2640 of 2007 N.T.P.C.LTD.KAHALGAON,BHAGALPUR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 04- 7.5.2008 Heard Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha for the petitioner, Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha, learned JC to Standing Counsel No.V, and Mr. Ganpati Trivedi for opposite party no.2. This application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by respondent no.2 of First Appeal No.83 of 2004 with the prayer to modify the order dt.15.9.2006 passed in the appeal, to the extent that the order directing the Collector of the district to deposit the entire decretal amount with solatium and upto-date interest with the learned execution court, inter alia, on the ground that the present petitioner’s first appeal arising out of the same judgment is pending in this Court. Opposite party no.2 has placed on record his counter affidavit. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is a public sector undertaking of the Government of India and is engaged in setting up thermal power stations for generation of electricity. The petitioner took the decision to set up one such unit at village Kahalgaon in the district of Bhagalpur, and for that purpose lands were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The land of opposite party no.2 was also acquired and the amount of compensation was determined by the learned Land Acquisition Officer. The amount was enhanced by the learned Subordinate Judge, and impugned in the appeal. The State of Bihar preferred appeal and was 2 barred by limitation. Its condonation application was rejected by the aforesaid order dt. 15.9.2006 as a result of which the appeal became incompetent and the Collector of the district of Bhagalpur was directed to deposit the decretal amount. The petitioner is reminded of paragraph- 3 of the said order and is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference :- “3. This is not to deny to the State Government its statutory right of appeal but then the same has to be availed of for a meaningful purpose, rather than to harass the indigent land-owner. This is obviously, inter alia, the product of callousness, and also that the functionaries of the State Government responsible for the decision to file the appeal, do not have to bear the litigation expenses from their personal pockets. The fact that the amount of compensation has to some extent been enhanced by the civil court may also speak of an administratively unjust and niggardly approach on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer.” 3. I am, therefore, not inclined to allow this application. It is accordingly rejected. mrl. (S K Katriar)