AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Radha Mohan Prasad, J.—The review application has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 5.10.93 passed in F.A. No. 35 of 88, which as allowed along with F.A. No. 33 of 88 by common judgment and order.
The said appeals were filed against the judgment and award dated 14.12.81 passed by the Special Land Acquisition judge, Darbhanga in L.A. case Nos. 740 and 739 of 1978. By the judgment under review this Court held the Appellant-opposite 1st party to be entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per Katha from he date of taking over possession of the and in date in question and also for statutory compensation at the rate of 30% on the enhanced amount and interest at the rate of 49% on the unpaid amount and to that extent modified the judgment and award of the Special Judge. The judgment under review was delivered on the 15th October, 1993 and the present review application was filed on 6th July, 1995 along with the petition u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the aforesaid petition. In the said petition it is stated that the Petitioners were not impleaded as parties either before the Collector or the Special Land Acquisition Judge, Darbhanga, nor before this Court in F.A. No. 35/88. As such, they had no knowledge about the order/decree passed by this Court and on receipt of letter from the District Land Acquisition Officer, dated 25.10.94 about the deposit of the decreetal amount in pursuance of the decree of this Court, the Petitioner No. 2 vide letter dated 20.12.94 informed the Petitioner No. 1 about the judgment and decree under review. It is further stated that on receipt of the said letters files were processed in the office of Petitioner No. 1 and necessary orders and information from the competent authorities were sought, which took time. However, it is admitted that Chirkut was filed on 21.1.95 for obtaining certified copy of the order and decree in the F.A. No. 35/88, which could only be obtained on 13.3.95 and again it took about four months time to process the matter in the various offices including obtaining legal opinion.
A Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite 1st party, in which it is stated that the acquisition of her land has been made for and at the instance of the Applicants and as such, they were aware of the proceedings, but deliberately chose not to come forward and plead their case either before the Collector or any subsequent proceedings arising there from. It is further stated that they were not impleaded as parties in F.A. No. 35/88 as they were not parties before the Special Land Acquisition Judge, before whom reference has been made by the Collector u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The notifications under the Act were made on 1.5.76. The Collector''s Award was made on 11.9.76 and the opposite party accepted the compensation awarded under protest on 13.9.76 and prayed for referring the matter to the Court u/s 18. Thereafter, the opposite second party took possession of the land and horded over the same to the Applicants. It is contended that the Applicants have failed to explain satisfactorily each day''s delay even from 21.1.95 to 6.7.95 and are themselves responsible for their deliberate laches on their part.
A rejoinder to the said counter affidavit has also been filed, in which it is stated that it was never brought to their notice about the aforementioned reference u/s 18, nor they were impleded as parties in the Court below.
The questions, which fall for consideration are as to whether the explanation given in the limitation petition for filing of the review application much after a lapse of time, could be held to be satisfactory to condone the delay and as to whether a person, who has not been party in any of the proceedings from which the review petition is filed can be said to be aggrieved person to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC Code, when it is settled law that the decree passed in absence of any person cannot be enforced against that person.
In regard to the first question, it is well settled that each day''s delay has to be explained satisfactorily and the law of limitation applies equally to the citizens, the State and all others including the instrumentality of the State, such as the Applicants. From the facts stated in the petition u/s 5 it is evident that the only plea taken for the aforementioned delay is on account of internal movement of the file and seeking legal opinion, which, in my opinion, cannot be considered as good and valid ground for condoning the delay. Moreover, in the said petition it is not mentioned as to when the letter dated 25.10.95 from the District Land Acquisition Officer was received by Petitioner No. 2 and the letter dated 20.12.94 of Petitioner No. 2 was received by Petitioner No. 1 about the judgment and decree passed by this Court. Thus, in my opinion, the Petitioners have not been able to make out sufficient and satisfactory ground for condonation of delay and the said petition at flag ''L'' is accordingly rejected.
Mr. Singh, learned Counsel for the opposite party has submitted that this review application is also not maintainable on the ground that the Petitioners who never appeared in any of the earlier proceedings can not be held to be aggrieved person, as such a petition can be filed only by an aggrieved person. In support of this, learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Bharath Sjngh v. Sheo Prasad Giani Ram and Ors. reported in AIR 1978 Del 122, wherein the Divisional Bench of Delhi High Court has held that a review application can be filed only by a party to the lis in which the order sought to be reviewed has been passed and cannot be preferred by a third party. The Court after considering the provisions for review held that this postulates that the person applying for review has to satisfy two conditions namely, that he is aggrieved by the order and also that he for the reasons mentioned was not in a position to bring that fact to the notice of the Court earlier which resulted in a wrong order being passed. According to their Lordships, if these two conditions are necessary before a review application can be moved, it follows that the review application has to be made by a person who was a party to the lis decided by the impugned order or decree, adversely affecting a person, who is not a party to the lis in which that order of decree is passed is in law not binding on him and such a person can ignore the order or decree which adversely affects him and so cannot apply for a review of that order or decree. The Court also held that he may take such other steps as may be available to him in law to protect his right as and when the order or decree adversely affecting him is sought to be enforced so as to jeopardise the rights.
On the other hand, Miss Nilu Agrawal, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that under Clause (1) to Order 47, Rule 1, CPC any person considering himself to be aggrieved by a decree or order is entitled to seek review of the said decree or order. Thus, according to her, the present review application at the instance of the Petitioner is maintainable. In support of this she placed reliance on the following decisions:
Shivdeo Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others,
M/s. Neyvely Lignite Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neyvely and others, (Paragraphs 12 and 14).
3 Sarat Chandra Mukerji Vs. Mahomed Hossein and Others and
AIR 1929 185 (Nagpur)
In view of my aforementioned order on the question of limitation, it was not necessary to go into the second point. But however, as the second point has been canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties, I wish to decide the same. In view of the settled law that decree passed in the absence of any person cannot be enforced against that person, it is difficult to hold that the said person can be said to be aggrieved. In my opinion, none of the decisions referred to by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner directly covers the questions involved in the present case. Order 47, Rule 1 provides that any person considering himself aggrieved by a decree or order may apply for review, of the judgment of the Court, which passed the decree or made the order, but that, in, my opinion, can not be interpreted to mean that a person against whom a decree is not binding can also consider himself to be aggrieved.
In the result, the limitation petition placed at flag ''L'' is rejected and consequently, the Civil Review application also stands dismissed.