Union of India (UOI) vs Radhey Shyam

P.K. Bhasin, J.—This application has been filed by the Appellant under Order 41 Rule 3A and Section 151 of the CPC and Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 176 days in filing the present appeal against the judgment dated 1.05.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in LAC No. 97A/08 whereby the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector @ Rs. 15,70,000/- per acre in respect of acquired land of the Respondent was enhanced to Rs. 16,99,042/- per acre.

The reasons for condonation of delay pleaded in this application are reproduced below:

That it is submitted , in the mean time , in order to save further delay in the limitation draft appeal was prepared and finalization filed on 25.01.2011. It is also submitted that the appeal could not be filed within the period of limitation and there is a delay of 176 days in filing the appeal.

In support of this application Mr. Sanjay Poddar , learned Counsel of the Appellant-UOI pleaded reliance on some judgments of the Supreme Court . Those judgments are reported as Improvement Trust, Ludhiana Vs. Ujagar Singh and Others, : State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Ahmed Jaan, Hari Shankar Rastogi Vs. Sham Manohar and Others, Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu and Others Vs. Gobardhan Sao and Others, N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, G. Ramegowda, Major and Ors Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, G. Ramegowda Major and Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer." Mr. Poddar cited some judgments of this Court also wherein delay in filing of appeals by the government in the land acquisition matter was condoned. Those judgment are reported as " 2010 (2) AD (Del) 750: Vijay Kumar v. Union of India 2010 (168) DLT 731:UOI v. Mahender Singh 2010(171) DLT 622: Raghbir Singh v. UOI 2010 (3) AD Del 771: Rajpal Singh v. UOI 2010 (4) AD Del 556: Sita Rani v. UOI 2009 (165) DLT 290: Om Prakash,: 2008 (149) 249 DDA v. Vijay Pal Singh,: 2007(141) DLT 484 Delhi Development Authority v. Saraswati Devi ,: 2007 (10) AD (Del) 42 DDA v. R.S Jindal ,: 2007 (143) DLT 426 Rati Ram v. UOI,:2005 (117) DLT 1 Yad Ram v. Ors. : UOI 120 (2005) DLT 348 (DB) Kanwar Singh v. UOI,: 2002 (8) AD (Del) Shiv Dan Singh v. UOI,:1999 (79) DLT 572 UOI v. Darshan Singh and1990 (42) DLT 577 UOI v. Jyotsna Holdings Pvt. Ltd."

Before proceeding further, I may mention here that the land owner did not enter appearance despite service of notice on him of this application of the Government for condonation of delay in the filing of its appeal.

I have gone through all the judgments cited by Mr. Sanjay Poddar. The crux of all these judgments of the Supreme Court as well as this Court is that the fact that it is the Government which is seeking condonation of delay and not a private party is totally irrelevant factor when the Courts are disposing of such like applications for condonation of delay. The law of limitation is the same for a private citizen as well as for Government authorities. It has been held that where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of delay then the delay should generally be condoned. In the present case, the Appellant itself has averred in the application that the Land Acquisition Collector had received the file from the legal department of the Government with the approval to file an appeal against the judgment of the trial Court in August, 2010 and thereafter the Naib Tehsildar was directed to get the appeal filed within time. The appeal was, however, filed on 25th January, 2011 and there is no explanation whatsoever for the inaction during the period from August, 2010 to 25th January, 2011. In the absence of any explanation in that regard, it cannot be said that there was a sufficient cause for the Appellant for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation and that makes it a clear case of gross negligence and, therefore, the delay in filing of the present appeal cannot be condoned just for the reason that Courts have been holding that applications for condonation of delay should be dealt with liberally, as was the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant. 6. This application is accordingly dismissed and as a result of the dismissal of the Appellant''s application for condonation of delay, this appeal is also dismissed as time barred.