TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 1484
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned to condone the delay of 3671 days in filing the appeal and dismissed the appeal. 3. A Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 01.10.1990 for acquiring land to an extent of Acs. 32.77 in Reach No. 11 of Nellepalli village for foreshore submersion of Kandaleru Reservoir under Telugu Ganga Project. After conducting the award enquiry, Land Acquisition Officer, Telugu Ganga Project, Rapur passed an award, in Award No. 12/91-92 dated 30.01.1992. The award was passed after taking into account the sale statistics for the preceding three years prior to the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act which was obtained from the Sub-Registrar, Rapur and after verification of all sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion Officer basing on the age of the trees. 5. Dissatisfied with the enhanced compensation, the appellants/claimants approached the High Court referring to the order in A.S. No. 1749/2004 dated 01.03.2013 and other judgments of Andhra Pradesh High Court. However, there was a delay of 3671 days in so preferring the appeal. The High Court dismissed L.A.A.S.(MP) No. 61/2015 in L.AA.S. (SR) No. 12334/2014 on the ground of inordinate delay of 3671 days since the High Court was of the view that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay and held that the delay sought to be condoned was not on account of a bona fide mistake but was merely intended to make gain basing on the assessment of value of pomegranate trees in the decisions of Peddiredd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... explained and the High Court rightly exercised its discretion in declining to condone the delay. Insofar as the judgment in Civil Appeal Nos.11404-11405 of 2016 is concerned, it is submitted that the said order relates to Somashila Project submergence of which the award was of the year 1999 and the same cannot be applied to the present case. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. Perused the impugned judgment and considered the documents and other materials placed on record. 10. The High Court dismissed the claimants' appeal mainly on the ground of delay of 3671 days in filing the appeal. On perusal of records, it is seen that the appellants have explained the reason for the delay in filing the appeal stating th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s contended that the same approach ought to have been adopted in the case of appellants also. Insofar as, the reliance placed upon by the claimants in L.A.S.S. No. 46/2015, the High Court seems to have brushed aside the contention of the appellants on the puerile ground that the relevant fact situation in the said case is not forthcoming in the said order. In our view, the High Court was not right in adopting a different yardstick in the case of the appellants in not condoning the delay. 12. The term "sufficient cause" is to receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, when no negligence, inaction or want of bona fide is attributable to the appellants, the Court should adopt a justice-oriented approach in condoning ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....exercised its discretion either condoning or declining to condone the delay, normally the superior court will not interfere in exercise of such discretion. The true guide is whether the litigant has acted with due diligence. Since the appellants/claimants are the agriculturists whose lands were acquired and when similar situated agriculturists were given a higher rate of compensation, there is no reason to decline the same to the appellants. Merely on the ground of delay such benefit cannot be denied to the appellants. The interest of justice would be served by declining the interest on the enhanced compensation and also on the solatium and other statutory benefits for the period of delay. 15. Insofar as the compensation for the pomegran....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... deemed it appropriate to award Rs. 3,000/- as compensation for each of the pomegranate tree. 17. However, the compensation of Rs. 3000/- per pomegranate tree, as has been awarded in the abovementioned case, cannot be made applicable to the present case, considering the fact that award of compensation by Land Acquisition Officer in the said case dated 08.03.1999, as opposed to award in the present case which is dated 30.01.1992. A period of about seven years is a considerable period to be taken note of while computing cost of planting and raising fruit bearing trees. It is obvious that seven years back a fruit bearing tree would have fetched lesser income than it would fetch now. In the facts and circumstances of the present case and tak....