Case Note & Summary
This appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court arose from an order of the Judicial Commissioner, Goa, Daman and Diu dated April 28, 1978, dismissing the State's appeal in a land acquisition compensation matter. The dispute concerned land at Bambolim acquired for the public purpose of constructing a Medical College. The appellant was the Deputy Collector, Northern Sub Division, Panaji, representing the State, and the respondent was Comunidade of Bambolim. The core question was whether the State's appeal, filed beyond the prescribed limitation period, could be saved on the ground of bona fide mistake, and whether the absence of a Vakalatnama filed by State counsel was fatal to the appeal. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on January 21, 1965. The Land Acquisition Officer made his award on March 30, 1966. The Code of Civil Procedure and the Arbitration Act were extended to Goa, Daman and Diu on September 15, 1965 and came into force by notification dated May 24, 1966. On a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Civil Court made its award on June 1, 1967. Dissatisfied with the enhanced compensation awarded by the Civil Court, the State filed an appeal on August 25, 1967 in the Comarca Court, which is a civil court under the Act. There was procedural confusion: the Government Pleader was unable to decide whether to pursue the remedy under the Portuguese Code 'Recurso de Apelacao' or under the Code of Civil Procedure. A memo was filed by the Government Pleader on June 22, 1966 stating that he was pursuing the appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure without giving up the remedy under 'Recurso de Apelacao'. The Judicial Commissioner ultimately dismissed the appeal on two grounds: it was barred by limitation, and the State counsel had not filed a Vakalatnama, making the appeal not properly presented. The Supreme Court framed the crucial question as whether the appeal was presented bona fide within limitation. The Court noted that if the appeal was filed under 'Recurso de Apelacao', it would be well within time; but if entertained under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, it was beyond limitation. The respondent contended that there were no bona fides on the State's part and Section 14 of the Limitation Act could not be applied. The Court disagreed, holding that the State acts through its authorised representative and the counsel was in two minds due to the extension of the CPC to Goa. Since the CPC stood extended and a decree had already been passed by the Reference Court, proceedings should obviously have been pursued under the CPC as per Section 53 of the Act. The counsel was pursuing the remedy wrongly under the Portuguese Code, causing the appeal to be filed beyond limitation. The Court held that there was a bona fide mistake on the part of the counsel in pursuing the remedy. On the Vakalatnama issue, the Court held that since the State acts through the counsel for the State and he is entitled to represent the State in all proceedings initiated in Court, there was no need to file a Vakalatnama; a memo of appearance was sufficient. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the order of the Judicial Commissioner and remanded the matter to the High Court at Goa, requesting expeditious disposal preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the order. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Limitation - Bona fide pursuit of wrong remedy - Section 14 Limitation Act, 1963 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 18 and 54 - The State's appeal against enhanced compensation in a land acquisition matter was filed beyond limitation because its counsel was uncertain whether to proceed under the Portuguese Code ('Recurso de Apelacao') or the Code of Civil Procedure after the CPC was extended to Goa - The Supreme Court held that the State acted bona fide through its authorised representative and the delay caused by pursuing the wrong remedy was excusable under Section 14 of the Limitation Act - Held that the appeal was not barred by limitation. B) State Representation - Vakalatnama - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The Judicial Commissioner had dismissed the appeal partly because the State counsel had not filed a Vakalatnama - The Supreme Court held that the State acts through its counsel who is entitled to represent the State in all proceedings initiated in court, and therefore no Vakalatnama was required; a memo of appearance was sufficient - Held that the appeal was properly presented.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appeal was presented bona fide within limitation despite being filed beyond the period prescribed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Whether Section 14 of the Limitation Act could be applied to excuse the delay caused by pursuing the remedy under the Portuguese Code instead of the Code of Civil Procedure; Whether the absence of a Vakalatnama filed by State counsel rendered the appeal not properly presented.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Judicial Commissioner, and remanded the matter to the High Court at Goa for expeditious disposal preferably within six months from receipt of the order. No costs were awarded.
Law Points
- Section 14 Limitation Act applies to bona fide mistake in pursuing wrong remedy
- State counsel need not file Vakalatnama
- memo of appearance sufficient
- appeal not barred by limitation when State acts through counsel under genuine procedural confusion after extension of CPC to Goa
- Section 54 Land Acquisition Act read with Section 96 CPC
