Judgment:
Barin Ghosh and Navaniti Prasad Singh, JJ.
1. The judgment and decree under reference was passed on 07th of January, 1994. On 24th January 1994, an application was made for obtaining certified copy of the judgment and decree. On being notified to supply folios, the appellant did not supply the same and, accordingly, on 08th of April 1994, the application for certified copy was rejected. Promptly, thereafter on 16th April 1994, a fresh requisition was submitted for supply of a certified copy of the said judgment and decree and the same was made available to the appellant on 25th of April, 1994. The appeal was preferred on 20th July, 1994. According to the Stamp Reporter, time to prefer the appeal stood expired on 07th of April, 1994. The application made by the appellant for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal has been dismissed. The appellant had 90 days time to prefer the appeal. No doubt, that time expired on 07th of April, 1994. However, the fact remains that there as some delay in obtaining the certified copy of the judgment and decree. It is true that because of the laches on the part of the appellant or the person engaged by the appellant to look after its interest pertaining to the first requisition for certified copy of the judgment and decree, the first application made by the appellant for obtaining such certified copy was rejected. But the appellant did not sit over the matter. It promptly, thereafter, within eight days' time, submitted a fresh application and ensured supply of a certified copy of the judgment and order on 25th of April, 1994 and thereupon preferred the appeal within ninety days' time from the date of obtaining the certified copy of the judgment and decree.
2. In the circumstances, we feel that enough cause has been made out for the delay and it was improper on the part of the learned Single Judge in dismissing the appeal holding that there is no sufficient cause of condonation of delay in preferring the appeal.
3. It appears that there was some confusion as to whether a Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable in view of Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the judgment and order passed by a learned Single Judge of a High Court. This issue has now been answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar reported in 2002 (2) PLJR 168 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in no uncertain terms held that such a Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable and Section 54 of the said Act does not create a bar in preferring such appeal.
4. In such view of the matter, the appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. The matter is remitted to the first appellate Court.