The Defence Estate Officer, Karnataka and Goa Circle vs Special Land Acquisition Officer, Project Sea Bird and Others

N.K. Patil, J—Petitioner has filed this Review Petition for review of the Judgment dated 31st August 2006, rendered in M.F.A. No. 3998/2006, by the Division Bench of this Court.

Along with the Review Petition, learned Central Government counsel has also filed I.A. 1/2013, seeking condonation of delay of 2537 days in filing the review petition.

Heard Shri. S.N. Rajendra, learned Central Government counsel appearing for review petitioner, for quite some time, through Video Conference on I.A. No. 1/2013 for condonation of delay of 2537 days in filing the review petition as also on merits.

The delay of 2537 days in filing the review petition has been explained at paragraphs 3 to 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, I.A. 1/2013.

After going through the statements made in the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is seen that the reasons stated are administrative one and the same is not sufficient and cannot be accepted for condoning the inordinate delay of 2537 days in filing the review petition. Hence, we are of the considered view that, the inordinate delay of 2537 days in filing the petition has not been explained satisfactorily by assigning valid and cogent reasons. The explanation offered at paragraphs 3 to 5 is in a very casual manner. Except making bald statements, no credible or trustworthy reasons are assigned for explaining the inordinate delay of 2537 days in filing the petition. Whenever there is inordinate delay, the party is bound to explain each day''s delay in filing the petition by setting out the dates and events. No proper explanation is offered explaining the delay. In the absence of proper explanation for condoning the inordinate delay of nearly seven years, no credibility could be given to the statements made in the affidavit. Hence, in view of non explanation of inordinate delay of 2537 days in filing the review petition, in a satisfactory manner, delay cannot be condoned. Hence, for the foregoing reasons, I.A. 1/2013 is dismissed as misconceived. Consequently, the review petition filed by petitioner is also liable to be dismissed.

However, in the interest of justice and equity, we have gone through the grounds urged by the review petitioner in the review petition and perused the judgment under review. After perusal of the same, it is manifest on the face of the same that, there is no error apparent on the face of the same nor the review petitioner has made out a good ground as such to consider the relief sought in the review petition.

Further, it can be seen that the ground for filing review petition is that, the lands involved in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Division Bench of this Court, relying upon the judgment and award passed in M.F.A. No. 3826/2006 disposed of on 14/08/2006 and the lands involved in M.F.A. No. 3826/2006 are different and not covered.

Further, it is seen that, at paragraph 4 of the Affidavit filed in support of the application, it is stated that the Hon''ble Apex Court has already confirmed the award passed by the Reference Court, fixing the market value of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs. 11,500/- per gunta, considering the nature and potentiality of soil, purpose for which the said lands are notified and acquired, etc., and that the review petition filed against the said order also has been dismissed. When such being the case, interference in the impugned judgment and award passed by this Court is uncalled for.

Further, it is pertinent to note that large extents of land have been notified and acquired for the benefit of Indian Navy, for establishment of "Sea Bird Project" and that the lands in question are notified and acquired under the same notification, pertaining to adjacent villages and for the same purpose and the claimants are entitled to just and reasonable market value for the valuable lands lost by them, as on the date of acquisition, in view of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and well settled law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in hosts of judgments. It is essential to do justice at all stages and the parties should not be dragged into an unending litigation. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court, confirmed by the Division Bench in the judgment under review is just and reasonable and interference in the same is unwarranted.

Therefore, on merits also, the petitioner has not made out a good case for interference in the impugned judgment and award passed by this Court.

Therefore, taking into consideration all these aspects and also the totality of the case on hand, we do not find any justification or good ground to entertain this review petition and accordingly, the review petition filed by the review petitioner is dismissed.