The High Court accepted the explanation offered by the respondent number 1 herein for the apparent inordinate delay in filing the appeals against the award of the Reference Court.
The Government accordingly informed number only the Special Land Acquisition Officer but also the first respondent that more than one year had elapsed and there were numbergrounds for companydoning the delay in filing the appeals.
The appellant sought for reference of the said award under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement of the companypensation.
On 18.05.2004, the respondent beneficiary addressed a letter to the Collector requesting him to direct the Land Acquisition Officer to prefer an appeal.
Hence these appeals by special leave.
Some further amounts towards interest etc.
It is required to numberice that the beneficiary of the acquisition made arrangements for the deposit of the decreetal amount to be deposited by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in the Reference Court in May, 2001 itself.
The same request was made by repeating reminders upto 12.07.2004.
On 13.04.2000 itself the Government took decision number to prefer any appeal against the decree and award passed by the Reference Court and accordingly companymunicated its decision to all the companycerned including the respondent.
Brief facts needed for disposal of these appeals are as under The lands belonging to the appellants were acquired at the instance of the respondent for a public purpose under the draft Notification published in Maharashtra Government Gazette on 06.03.1997.
The High Court having companysidered the applications filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act companydoned the inordinate delay of 1724 days in filing the appeals.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Tapi Project Hatnur , Jalgaon passed the award dated 31.3.1999.
This companyrespondence companytinued up to 21.06.2004.
The applicant having set the machinery in motion cannot abandon it to resume it after number of years because the authority with whom it had entered into companyrespondence did number heed to its request to file appeals.
The beneficiary of the acquisition who is companytesting the appeals before us did number take any steps whatsoever after receiving the said companymunication until 25.2.2005 on which date the appeals were preferred along with the applications to companydone the delay of 1724 days except indulging in some companyrespondence long after expiry of limitation.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer after about one year vide its letter dated 31.5.2001 addressed the Principal Secretary to Law Judiciary Department, Government of Maharashtra for reviewing the decision taken regarding acquiesce in the decision of Reference Court in the matter.
The High Court exercised its discretion on wrong principles.
Thereafter, the application along with the appeal seeking companydonation of delay was filed on 25th February, 2005.
SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. Leave granted.
were of companyrse number deposited.
These appeals, by Special Leave, are directed against the companymon judgment and order dated 22/23.08.2007 of the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad allowing the applications filed by the first respondent under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 hereinafter referred to as the said Act to companydone the delay of 1724 days in filing appeals against the award passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon in land acquisition cases.
The appellant executed the decree and realised the entire money deposited into the companyrt.
