AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Katju, J.—This first appeal has been filed after delay of one year and 41 days alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Heard learned Standing Counsel for the appellant.
In the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application it is mentioned that the impugned order of the learned Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad was passed on 129 2002. Application for certified copy was made on 1892002 and the copy made available in the office of the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Ghaziabad on 12112002. Thereafter the letter dated 131102 was sent to the D.G.C. (Civil) for his opinion and this letter was received in the office of D.G.C. on 231202. The acquiring body was also informed through letter dated 141102 whether an appeal should be filed and the acquiring body informed on 26. 11 .02 that they do not need the land in question vide Annexure 1.
In para 8 of the affidavit it is stated that the acquiring body gave its opinion on 1703 for filing an appeal. For this purpose letter dated 7703 was written to the Government and permission was granted on 30703. After grant of permission from the Government several letters were written to the acquiring body for providing Court fee and misc. expenses for filing the appeal. The acquiring body gave a draft in the name of Chief Standing Counsel on 1892003. The file was allotted to the Standing Counsel on 2392003. However, it is stated that the affidavit had to be sworn by Virendra Kumar Manager (Marketing) District Industries Centre, Ghaziabad who was transferred and in his place Praveen Kumar Gupta was posted as Project Manager, District Industries Centre, Ghaziabad who contacted the Chief Standing Counsel on 20204. Ultimately the appeal was filed on 1032004.
The above facts disclose the callous and irresponsible manner in which this appeal has been treated. We are not satisfied that there is sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. There are several periods of unexplained delay e.g. between 129 02 and 121102 (vide para 4 of the affidavit) between 141102 and 1703 (vide paras 6 and 8 of the affidavit) and then delay between 18903 when the officer contacted the Chief Standing Counsel at Allahabad and 10304 when the appeal was filed. We are not satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for the delay.
For the reasons given in First Appeal No. 162 of 1997, State of U.P. and another v. Kamal Mustafa Khan and others, decided on 922004 and in First Appeal No 160 of 1997, State of U.P. and others v. Kamal Mustafa Khan, decided on 332004 [Since reported in 2004(1) JCLR 104 (All) by this Court relying on the Supreme Court decisions in State of West Bengal v. Howrah Municipality, AIR 1972 SC 749 (para 27) and C.W.T. v. Amateur Riders Club, 1994 Suppl. (2) SCC 603, this application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act is rejected. Consequently the appeal is also dismissed.