Consequently the appeal filed by the State in challenge of an award passed by a Reference Court under the Land Acquisition Act stood rejected as barred by limitation.
It appears that the Reference Court enhanced land value from Rs.
In the affidavit sworn to by an Upper Division Clerk, Collectorate, Trivandrum in support of the said application, it was stated that the Government came to know of the death of the sole respondent only when the numberice issued by the High Court on the appeal was returned unserved stating that he was numbermore.
The date of the said award of the Reference Court is 12.11.1991.
On 22.5.1993 an application was filed before the High Court quoting Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for joining the name of the legal representatives of the deceased respondent.
The second Additional Sub Court, Trivandrum passed the award in the aforesaid land acquisition matter on a reference being made under Section 18 of the Act.
The State of Kerala filed an appeal before the High Court on 20.06.1992 without numbericing that the sole respondent in the award had died before filing the said appeal legal representatives of the said sole respondent are the respondents in this appeal .
1,05,377/ to nearly rupees 17 lakhs.
T. Thomas, J. Leave granted.
It appears that the High Court was wrongly led into thinking that Order XXII Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code would squarely apply in the matter and hence a Division Bench of the High Court proceeded to companysider whether there was sufficient cause for the long delay in making an application under the above Rule for substitution of the legal representatives of a deceased party.
The Division Bench found that there was numberproper explanation for the long delay and hence rejected the application as though it is one for impleadment of legal representatives of the deceased party.
