vf' MW COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR C.A. fM) No. 80/2009 (.Aopeal under Section 54of the Land Acauisition Act, 1959) APPELLANT Vs RESPONDENT ^ State of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa (C©). Dharmendra, aged about 38 years, S/o &hananjay Prasad, resident of Village Portha, Tehsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa (C6). fe •Y •'^ Present; Mr. Vinay Hant, Dy. Advocate fSenera! with Mr. S.K. Mishra, P.L. for the appeilant. ,IA~. Vinod &es'n ukl'i & Wir. ftupesh Shfivastoiva, Advoeates for the reSDondent. ORAL JU&6MENT (Passed on 11th March. 2010) Dhirendra Mishra. J;- 1. Heard on I.A. No.2. 2. Application is allowed. The appellant is permitted to fiie instant appeal without joining the Land Acquisition Officer, Sakti as resoondent. 3. Respondent's land admeasuring 0.182 hectare situated at yilloge Portha wasacquired for constructioo of Dongiya Sub- minor Canal and the Land Acquisition Officer, Sakti (for short 'the officer') passed an award ©Rs.6,70,443/- per hectare and awarded total compensation of Rs.1,65,948/- in favourof the respondent herein. The of'ficer,on objection by the respondent, referred the- award to the learned <. • • • • . J 'Additional E>istrict Judge, Sakti under Secfion 18 (2)of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act of 1894') for proper fixatt'on ofcompensatipn. ^•WKS^ 2 f; ^ •^ •-A1 4. The learned Additionat District Judge, considering that the land is situated besides the national highway near busstand and there ape various 'shops and dwelling houses in the vicinity, vide its award dated 15.10.2008 has held that the officer assessed compensation by treating the acquired land as un-irrigated land, whereas the land acquired was suitable for residential purposes and accordingly assessed comperisation ©Rs.500/- sq.meter as per guidelines issued for market valuesof iand for the vear 2005-06. 5. This appeal under Section 54 of the Act of 1894 has been preferred by the State albng with I.A. No.l, apDlJcation for condonation of delay, as the instant appeal has been preferred with a deiay of 297 days as per office note dated 7.11.2009. 6. Heardon I.A. No.l, apDlication for condonation of delay.J 7. Mr. Vinay Harit, learned Deputy Advocate ©eneral for the State submits that afterobtaining opinion of the Sovernment Advocate on 15.1.2009, the matter was forwarded to the Collector (Civil Suit Branch), District Janjgjr-Champa with a further request to forward the matter for grant of permission to file an appeal against the award impugned. On ' receipt of the letter dated 16.3.2009 from the office of Advocate Seneral, the Collector appojnted Officer In-charge for filing appeal on 13.4.2009 and thereafter after receiving relevant documents, the appeal was finally filed on 6.11.2009. Thus, the detay jn filjng appeal occasioned due to routine office work, the same is bonafide and deserves to be condoned. 8. On close examinotion of the reasons assigned for detay in -filjng this appeal; we find that steps for fjling appeal were taR'en after three months of passing of the award on 14.1.2009. The Officer In-charge was appointed by the Collector on 13.4.2009 for filing appeal and almostseven months thereafter the instant appeal hos been filed without any explanation for taking this inordinate time of seven months in fiiina the appeal. 9. Thus, taking into consideration that the dispute relates to acquisition of onlv 0.182 hectare of land and compensation of only asum of Rs.7 Lac &. odd amount has been awarded in favour of the respondent, we are of the opinion that the reasons assi9ned for inordinate defay of 297 days in filing this appeal is not Sufficient and the same cannot be condoned. lO.Accordingly, I.A. No.l is rejected. Consequently, the instant appeal is also dismissed as barred 1?y limitation.__ Roshan/- Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge !A f: ^