1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4697 /2010 ( Western Coalfields Ltd. vs. Mahadeo Potraje and another ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 15 th DECEMBER, 2010. Heard. The Respondent No.2-Special Tribunal has rejected petitioner's application for dismissal of proceedings for enhancement of compensation instituted by respondent no.1 and has also allowed application for condonation of delay of 14 days in filing those proceedings by respondent no.1. It is not in dispute that amount of compensation has been received by respondent no.1 on 29.5.2009 and as per Rule 7 (5) of Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development ) Rules, 1957, the respondent no.1 is entitled to move application for enhancement of compensation within six weeks. Said sub-rule also enables the respondent no.2- Tribunal to condone the delay for a further period of 30 days. The application has been filed by present respondent no.1 on 24.7.2009 i.e. 14 days after the expiry period of six weeks. Advocate Darda states that as office of 2 Tribunal did not raise any objection on 16.11.2009, the present petitioner moved an application for dismissal pointing out that such an application under section 14 could not have been entertained. No reply was filed to it and on 21.6.2010 i.e. more than one year thereafter, the respondent no.1 filed application for condonation of delay. He states that delay has been condoned ignoring all these facts and by treating the said delay as only of 14 days. According to learned counsel delay needs to be condoned till 21.6.2010. He has also placed reliance upon judgment of learned single Judge of this Court reported in 1997 (2) Mh.L.J. 315 ( Bhauji Ramchandra Lande and others vs. Western Coalfields Ltd.) to substantiate his contention. Advocate Gupta states that acquisition of property of respondent no.1 is not in dispute and statute permits him to obtain enhancement in compensation. Accordingly the proceedings were filed on 24.7.2009. When it was pointed out that there was delay application for its condonation was filed, which has rightly been entertained. He states that use of discretion by the Tribunal is neither arbitrary nor perverse. Here, admittedly, the prayer for condonation of delay is not accompanied with application under section 14 of the Coal Bearing Areas Act, 1957. However, the application has been filed and delay after expiry of period of six weeks and until filing of application i.e. 24.7.2009 is explained with a request to condone it. The contention in that application is said period of six weeks 3 needs to be counted from the date on which compensation was actually credited in the account of Respondent No.1 and not from the date of cheque or its receipt. The Tribunal has considered this aspect and has found it proper to condone the delay. It has also placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported at AIR 1987 SC 1353.(Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and others ). The judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court considered the challenge to vires of Rule 7 sub-rule 5 of 1957 Rules. The said judgment has got no bearing on discretion exercised by respondent no.2 in the present matter. There is no jurisdictional error or perversity. Petition is, therefore, rejected. No costs. JUDGE sahare.