IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1139 of 2006 (M/B) Karamat Ali & another. ………. Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand & others. ..………. Respondents Mr. Vijay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 4. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. BARIN GHOSH, C. J. (Oral) Restoration Application No. 362 of 2011 & Delay Condonation Application No. 5329 of 2011 In the writ petition, petitioners have sought for a mandamus directing the respondents to decide the application of the petitioners for re-determination of compensation of their land, in the light of the order dated 11th October, 2004 of this Court and the order dated 10th August, 1990 passed in reference, expeditiously. Time and again, petitioners sought for time to file supplementary affidavit. Such time was granted. Despite grant of such time, no supplementary affidavit was filed. On 23rd March, 2007, an order was passed granting 15 days’ more time to file supplementary affidavit as a last opportunity, with a direction that, in default, the writ petition will stand dismissed without reference to the Court. No such supplementary affidavit was filed and, accordingly, in terms of the said order, the writ petition stood dismissed. An application for restoration has been filed only on 2nd June, 2011. In that, it has been stated that due to lack of knowledge about listing of the case on 19th April, 2007, petitioners or their counsel did not appear before the Court and the Court was pleased to pass an order for consigning the record of the case to Record Room. The order dated 19th April, 2007, which has been annexed to the application for restoration, is not an order 2 passed by the Court, but by the Registrar General of this Court, in compliance with the order passed by this Court on 23rd March, 2007. The said state of affair clearly indicates how irresponsible the petitioners are, as also their legal advisor. Inasmuch as, there has been considerable delay in filing the restoration application, an application for condonation of delay has also been filed. In that, too, similar untruth has been stated. There is, therefore, no ground, far less any cogent ground, either to restore the writ petition or to condone the delay in filing the restoration application. However, taking into account that the petitioners are agriculturists, whose land had been acquired, and that they had to heavily depend upon their legal advisor, who misled them for his inefficiency; we proceed on the basis that it was the laches on the part of the Advocate engaged by the petitioners, for which the writ petition was dismissed. We, accordingly, condone the delay in filing the restoration application and allow the restoration application subject to the Advocate, engaged by the petitioners, paying cost of Rs. 2,000/- from his own resources with the High Court Legal Services Committee within 15 days from today, as a condition precedent. In default, the application for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application as well as the restoration application shall stand dismissed. Writ Petition No. 1139 of 2006 (M/B): Heard learned counsel for the parties on the merits of the writ petition. 2. Section 28-A was inserted in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said “Act”) w.e.f. 24th September, 1984. It appears, on 10th July, 1985, a notification under Section 4 of the said Act was published. The said notification covered the land belonging to the petitioners and other lands. It appears that, on 21st May, 1986, an award was made for acquiring the land covered by the said notification. It appears to be the contention of the petitioners that they accepted the compensation, under the award, on protest. It appears to be the contention 3 of the petitioners that, though they did not accept the award in relation to the amount of compensation, but still then, they did not file any application under Section 18 of the said Act. It also appears to be the contention of the petitioners that owners of other land, covered by the said notification under Section 4 of the said Act, took recourse to Section 18 of the said Act. It appears that the District Court, on a reference under Section 18, enhanced the quantum of compensation by a judgment and decree dated 10th August, 1990. It appears that this Court, on 11th October, 2004, confirmed the said judgment and decree of the District Court. It appears to be the contention of the petitioners that they approached the Collector under Section 28-A soon after the District Court passed the judgment and decree on 10th August, 1990 and such approach was within the time as mentioned in Section 28-A of the said Act. It appears to be the contention of the petitioners that, in view of the appeal against the judgment and decree of the District Court remaining pending in this Court, the said application of the petitioners, made under Section 28-A, could not be decided and, inasmuch as on 11th October, 2004, this Court had upheld the judgment and decree passed by the District Court, there is now no impediment to decide the said application of the petitioners and, accordingly, a mandamus should be issued in that regard. 3. Since no counter affidavit has been filed to the writ petition and since the date of filing of the application under Section 28-A of the said Act is absent, we are not in the know whether the application of the petitioners was in terms of the provisions of Section 28-A of the said Act. But, if it is so, it is now obligatory on the part of the Collector to dispose of the said application in terms of Section 28-A of the said Act. We, accordingly, issue a direction to that effect. 4. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C. J.) 07.07.2011 07.07.2011 G