DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs A.K.MEHROTRA

THIS order will dispose of 3 Miscellaneous applications namely, RA-37/91, RA-65/91 and RA-1/92. The facts are being given from RA-1/92. The case has get a chequered history. Briefly the facts are that the Delhi Development Authority, appellant filed an appeal against the order of the District Forum dated 1.11.90. The impugned order was received by the appellant on 6.11.90. However, the appeal was filed by them on 6.5.91 with an application for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. In the application it is stated that when the file was received in the office it get mingled up with other files and could be traced only on 18.4.91. After the file was received by Sh. P.N. Dhar, panel lawyer he returned it to the authority with the request, that he would not be able to file the appeal due to bad health.

IT is further stated that after receipt of the file from Shri P.N. Dhar, it again mingled up with the other files and could not be traced. Consequently, the appeal could not be filed within time. Thereafter, the file was traced a few days before the date of filing the appeal. IT was entrusted to panel lawyer on 18.4.91 for filing the appeal. Consequently, it is prayed that delay in filing the appeal be condoned. The appeal was dismissed in default on 26.6.91. RA-37/91 was filed for restoration of the appeal, on 18-7-91. The RA was dismissed in default on 30.10.91. After the dismissal of the RA, an application No. RA-65 dated 25.11.91 was filed on 27-11-92 for restoration of application No. RA-37/91. That application was again dismissed in defaulting 27-1-92. 3rd application namely RA-1/92 was filed on 21.2.92 for restoration of RA-65/1991. The application RA-1/92 has been opposed by the learned Counsel for the respondent on the ground that the conduct of the applicant had been negligent from the very beginning and there are no sufficient grounds for restoration of the same.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel for the complainant submit that in view of the circumstances of the present case there are good grounds to accept, this application and also the other applications for restorations. In support of his contention he relies on Rafiq & Anr. v. Munsilal and Anr., AIR 1981 SC 1400 wherein it is observed that the problem that agitates the Bench is, whether it is proper that the party should suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission, or misdemeanor of his agent. The answer obviously is in the negative. May be, that the learned Advocate absented himself deliberately or intentionally. The Court has no material for ascertaining that aspect of the mailer. However, the Court cannot be a party to an innocent party suffering injustice merely because his chosen advocate defaulted. In the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Bench set-aside the orders of the High Court dismissing the appeal in default and refusing to recall the same.

FOR the contention regarding delay in filing the appeal Mr. Aggarwal relies upon Collector, Land Acquisition, Ananlnag and Another v. Mst. Katiji and Others, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1353. In that case the compensation was enhanced by the District Judge to 80 times than that given by the Land Acquisition Officer. An appeal against the order of District Judge was filed in the High Court. The appeal was late by 4 days and the same was dismissed by the learned Bench while dismissing the appeal filed by the State Government, that the order under appeal substantially enhanced the compensation for the land acquired, that it involved important questions with regard to the principles of valuation, and that it was barred by 4 days only. The facts of the present case as detailed above are distinguishable from those of the cases cited by the Counsel for the applicant. In this case the appeal was filed by the D.D.A. after a delay of about 5 months. In our view the explanation that the file mingled twice is not a proper explanation. Moreover all the dates have not been given by the D.D.A. It is again relevant to point out that the appeal was dismissed in default on 26.6.91. The application for restoration was filed after 22 days. That application was also dismissed in default on 30-10-91. The 2nd application for restoration was filed after 28 days. That application to was dismissed in default on 27.1.92 and the present application for restoration was filed after 24 days. If the 1st application for restoration had been dismissed in default it was also expected that the D.D.A. should have deputed its own employee to watch the proceedings. However, the D.D.A. failed to do so. It shows negligence on the part of the D.D.A. as well. It is desirable that the Vice-Chairman should go into the matter and see that in future such lapses do not occur.

IN view of facts and circumstances of the present case we do not find sufficient reasons to restore the application (RA-1/1992). Consequently, the application is dismissed with costs. As the application for restoration has been dismissed and the appeal had earlier been dismissed, the amount deposited by the D.D.A. before the District Forum be paid to the complainant, Cost Rs. 200-00. Appeal dismissed.