1 sa403.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 403 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9956 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Beed District Beed and others. ...APPELLANTS VERSUS Arjun s/o Sitaram Rohite, Age: 40 years, Occ: Aherwadgaon, Tq. & Dist. Beed and others. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. V.G. Shelke, A.G.P. for appellants. Mr. D.R. Jaybhar, Advocate holding for Mr. D.A. Bide, Advocate for Resp. Nos. 1 to 6. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 21ST NOVEMBER, 2011 PER COURT : . Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Learned A.G.P. appearing for the State would submit that, in view of the provisions of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the 2 sa403.11 respondents-original plaintiffs should have filed the Reference to the Collector and the civil suit was not maintainable before the Civil Court. Learned A.G.P. for the appellant invited my attention to the contents of the condonation of delay and submitted that, the delay in filing the appeal before the lower appellate Court was due to procedure which is to be followed by the Government authorities in according sanction to challenge the order of the trial Court. The delay occurred in filing the appeal was not intentional. It is further argued that, through oversight the summons received from the civil Court was misplaced and therefore, the appellants could not appear in the matter before the trial Court. Learned A.G.P. has further submitted that, public interest is involved in the matter and when the judgment and order passed by the trial Court is without jurisdiction, in that case, liberal approach should have been adopted by the lower appellate Court and the application for condonation of delay should have been allowed. 3 sa403.11 Therefore, according to the learned A.G.P., this appeal deserves consideration. 3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the original plaintiffs i.e. respondents herein, would submit that, the delay is not properly explained. There is inordinate delay of more than three years in filing the appeal challenging the judgment and order passed by the trial Court and therefore, the lower appellate Court has taken a view that the delay is not properly explained. Therefore, this Court may not interfere. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondents also invited my attention to the judgment and order passed by the trial Court and in particular para-5 and 6 of the said judgment and submitted that, this appeal may be dismissed. 5. Following substantial questions of law falls for consideration in this appeal. 4 sa403.11 (1) Whether the District Court, Beed was correct in rejecting Misc. Civil Application No.85/2011 filed by the appellants herein for condonation of delay in assailing the judgment and order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, in Regular Civil Suit No. 297/2006 dated 21-03-2007, thereby allowing the suit filed by the respondents herein without having jurisdiction to entertain such suit? (2) Whether the District Court, Beed failed in appreciating the contention of the appellant that the civil suit filed by the respondents i.e. original plaintiffs should not have been entertained by the trial Court in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lakshmi chand and others vs. Gram Panchayat, Kararia and others, reported in AIR 1996 SC 523, when the judgment and order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Beed in R.C.S. No.297/2006 on 21-03-2007 was without jurisdiction assailed/challenged the said order, law of limitation can be directly applied so as to defeat the interest 5 sa403.11 of the State i.e. appellant herein. 6. I have given due consideration to the rival submissions. Provision of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act reads thus : "18. (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award (or the amendment) thereof may by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. (2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award (or the amendment) is taken : Provided that every such application shall be made.- (a) if the person making it was present or represented before the 6 sa403.11 Collector at the time when he made his award (or the amendment) within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award (or the amendment). (b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12, sub section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector's award (or the amendment) whichever period shall first expire. [(3) Any order made by the Collector on an application under this section shall be subject to revision by the High Court, as if the Collector were a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908]." 7. Therefore, aggrieved person has remedy to approach the Collector, if he has grievance arising out of the land acquisition proceedings. That apart, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakshim Chand (supra) has taken a view that the 7 sa403.11 civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit arising under the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, jurisdiction of the civil Court is specifically barred. 8. When the appellants herein approached the lower appellate Court, the lower appellate Court should have considered the submissions of the appellants that, the order impugned before the lower appellate Court was without any jurisdiction. The order which is without any jurisdiction and if it is challenged before the competent Court by way of filing appeal, in my considered opinion, lower appellate Court should have taken liberal approach in the matter. Ultimately, the amount is to be paid to the respondents from the public exchequer. Therefore, Supreme Court has taken a view that,in case proceedings are filed by the State, some liberal approach is required to be taken while considering the prayer for condonation of delay. 8 sa403.11 9. In the facts and circumstances of this case, in my considered view, the delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned. It is true that, while considering the prayer for condonation of delay, Court should not consider the merits of the matter. However, when the judgment and order which was impugned before the lower appellate Court was without jurisdiction, that should have been weighed while considering the application for condonation of delay. Therefore, for the reasons aforesaid, second appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the lower appellate Court in Misc. Civil Application No. 85 of 2011 dated 24-06-2011 is quashed and set aside. The prayer of the appellants for condonation of delay stands allowed. The lower appellate Court is directed to register the appeal filed by the appellants subject to fulfillment of other conditions and proceed with the appeal in accordance with law. 10. The Second Appeal is allowed on the 9 sa403.11 aforesaid questions of law. Consequently, Civil Application also stands disposed of. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/NOV11