IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2189 of 2010 PRASADI MAHTO son of late Loka Mahto, resident of Village- Meharpar, P.S.- Laheri (Biharsharif), District- Nalanda. . . . . Appellant-Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Collector, Nalanda. . . . . Respondent - opposite Party. with MJC No.2191 of 2010 AMRIT MAHTO . . . . . . . Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Collector, Nalanda. . . . . Respondent - opposite Party. with MJC No.2192 of 2010 CHAMELI DEVI widow of late Surju Mahto, resident of Village- Meharpar, P.S.- Laheri (Biharsharif), District- Nalanda. . . . . Appellant-Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Collector, Nalanda. . . . . Respondent - opposite Party ----------- 3/ 28.09.2010 Heard. All these applications have been filed against the judgment and award dated 25.03.1987 passed by Sri Anwar Ahmad, the then Spl. Land Acquisition Judge, Nalanda in various Land Acquisition cases. 29 acres of land was acquired by the Government, which belonged to about 90 persons. A small portion of petitioners’ land was also acquired. Nevertheless, even these small pieces of land were very valuable for them, as it was priced land and it was one of the main source of their livelihood. About 63 appeals were filed by different land owners. As such, the filing of certified copy of the judgment was dispensed with by order dated 16.07.1991, where ever a copy of the same was filed. The petitioner submits that on one such date they were not present and as such an order was passed for filing of certified copy 2 of judgment. Learned counsel further submits that as they were not present they could not point out before the learned Judge that filing of the certified copy has been dispensed with, as two sets of certified copy of judgments were already on record. Learned counsel submits that 24 First Appeals have been allowed to the extent mentioned in the judgment of this Court. The petitioners submit that if these M.J.C. applications are not allowed, they will suffer irreparable loss. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in case of one of the petitioners, the compensation awarded was even less than five thousand and in other two cases compensation awarded were about 12 thousand and 29 thousand. Counsel for the State submits that petitioners are themselves responsible for delay in disposal of the first appeals. He further submits that in such circumstances, the State would not be liable to pay the interest for the years, the appeals remained un- restored. The stand of the State may not seem to be unreasonable to some extent. However, this aspect can be best agitated in concerned appeals when these cases are taken up for hearing. In view of the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners, these M.J.C. applications bearing M.J.C. Nos. 2189 of 2010, 2191 of 2010 and 2192 of 2010 are allowed and F.A. Nos. 455 of 1987, 456 of 1987 and 454 of 1987 are restored to its original file, subject to the condition that petitioner of M.J.C. No. 2189 of 2010 will deposit a sum of Rs. 200/- in favour of the Patna High Court Legal Services Aid Committee and the other two petitioners of 3 M.J.C. Nos. 2191 of 2010 and 2192 of 2010 will deposit a sum of Rs. 500/- within six weeks from today. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)