(Prayer (in C.M.P.(MD) No.4567 of 2024): Petition filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 22 days in preferring the restoration petition in C.M.P.(MD) SR No. 22065 of 2024 on failing to comply the order dated 24.01.2024, passed by this Court in C.M.P.(MD) No.6193 of 2020 in W.A.(MD) SR No.43396 of 2020.

(in C.M.P.(MD) SR No.22065 of 2024): Petition filed under Section 151and Order IX Rule 9 of the of the Code of Civil Procedure to restore the C.M.P.(MD) No.6193 of 2020 in W.A.(MD) SR No.43396 of 2020, on the file of this Court.

(in W.A.(MD) SR No.43396 of 2020): Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order passed by this Court, dated 13.04.2018 in W.P.(MD) No.10834 of 2012.)

Dr. G. Jayachandran J

1. This civil miscellaneous petition is filed seeking to condone the delay of 22 days in preferring the restoration petition to restore the civil miscellaneous petition in C.M.P.(MD) No.6193 of 2020 seeking to condone the delay of 853 days in filing the above writ appeal.

2. Though this civil miscellaneous petition appears to be very innocuous and at the outset it does not require much deliberation and application of mind, the counter filed by the respondents discloses the facts of the case that the matter relates to acquisition of the land of the respondents vide acquisition proceedings initiated in the year 1984. The land owners, being not satisfied with the award amount, had sought for enhanced compensation amount by filing L.A.O.P.Nos.73 to 76 of 1987 and the same was allowed by an order dated 26.09.1988. Further appeal filed in A.S.Nos. 660 to 663 of 1989 were disposed of on 10.07.2001. The beneficial order of the Honourable Supreme Court, which should have been extended to the respondents as per Section 28(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, was not extended to them despite representation was made by them. The rejection of the respondents' request by the Revenue Divisional Officer vide proceedings dated 29.06.2012 was the subject matter of the writ petition in W.P.(MD) No. 10834 of 2012. The learned Single Judge, vide order dated 13.04.2018, allowed the said writ petition with the following observation:

   “8.In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the benefits of enhancement of compensation made by the Court, as confirmed by the High Court, should be extended to the deceased petitioner also. Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order rejecting the claim of the deceased petitioner seeking enhancement of compensation on par with the other land owners dated 28.06.2012. The respondent is directed to compute the compensation at the enhanced rate fixed by the Sub Court at Rs.1,600/- per cent, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and make payment to the petitioners along with the statutory benefits.”

3. The said order is sought to be challenged by the Revenue Divisional Officer with a delay of 853 days. The Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 24.01.2024, allowed the condone delay petition and condoned the delay of 853 days in filing the writ appeal, however, on payment of Rs.5,000/- to the credit of the Environmental Committee operated by the Registrar (Judicial), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai, within a period of two weeks, failing which, the condone delay petition would stand dismissed automatically without reference to this Court.

4. A perusal of the records shows that the order condoning the delay of 853 days was passed by this Court on 24.01.2024. The petitioner herein had not complied with the condition within the time limit prescribed by this Court in the said order. Therefore, the petitioner herein has filed a restoration petition to restore C.M.P.(MD) No.6193 of 2020. Since there is a delay of 22 days in filing the restoration petition, the petitioner herein has filed the present civil miscellaneous petition seeking to condone the delay of 22 days in filing the restoration petition. In the affidavit filed by the petitioner herein in support of the present condone delay petition, it is stated that there was an administrative complication with regard to who is the competent authority to sanction the amount of Rs.5,000/- for payment of the cost amount as ordered by this Court and therefore, there is a delay in paying the cost amount.

5. We wonder that the petitioner herein / Revenue Divisional Officer, who had taken 853 days to prefer the writ appeal as against the order passed by the learned Single Judge and even after condonation of the said delay on condition of payment of Rs.5,000/- towards cost, is not able to pay the cost amount citing administrative reason with regard to who is the competent authority to sanction the amount of Rs.5,000/- for payment of the cost amount as ordered by this Court. We can only say that the land of a citizen has been acquired without paying the adequate compensation. When the land owner sought adequate compensation and the same was also awarded by this Court as early as in the year 2018, the bureaucrats want to delay the implementation of the order passed in favour of the land owner by preferring an appeal belatedly and not complying with the condition imposed by this Court in time. Hence, we do not find any merit to condone the delay in filing the restoration petition.

6. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous petition is dismissed. Consequently, C.M.P.(MD) SR No.22065 of 2024 and W.A.(MD) SR No.43396 of 2020 stand rejected.

7. The petitioner / Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District, who has been successfully protracting the payment of the due compensation to the land owner, is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards cost to the respondents herein from and out of his pocket for filing a petition only with an intention to protract and delay the payment of due compensation amount to the land owners, who have lost their land in the land acquisition proceedings. The petitioner is further directed to pay the cost amount of Rs.50,000/- to the respondents directly within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, is directed to verify as to whether the petitioner herein pays the said cost amount to the respondents within the prescribed period and if the petitioner fails to pay the cost amount within the prescribed period, the District Collector, Virudhunagar, shall take necessary distraint action against the petitioner for recovery of the cost amount from his salary.