Full Text
Translation output
LA.APP No.371/2014 Page 1 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: November 11, 2014
Date of Decision: November 11, 2014
LA.APP. 371/2014
RAN VIR SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. M.C. Verma, Advocate
RAN VIR SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. M.C. Verma, Advocate
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain & Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for respondent
No.1-UOI
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain & Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for respondent
No.1-UOI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
ORAL
C.M. No.18353/2014 (u/O XLI Rule 3A r/w Sec. 151 CPC & Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act)
There is delay of 828 days’ in filing the accompanying appeal.
The impugned judgment is of 1st May, 2012. In the instant application seeking condonation of delay, it stands categorically asserted that after passing of the impugned judgment, counsel for appellant had applied for certified copy which was handed over to appellant, who in
June, 2012 had further handed it over to some other counsel engaged by co-villagers, who were pursuing the appeal against the impugned judgment. It is also averred in this application that in September, 2014, 2014:DHC:5894
LA.APP No.371/2014 Page 2 appellant had come to know that no appeal had been filed on his behalf against the impugned judgment and thereafter, he had again applied for certified copy of impugned order and judgment in September, 2014 and for certain other reasons, the appeal could be filed only in November, 2014.
A Division Bench of this Court in ‘Delhi Development Authority vs. R.S. Jindal’ 2007 (10) AD Delhi 42 has reiterated in no uncertain terms that delay in filing of an appeal has to be satisfactorily or reasonably explained and that we are gradually but certainly moving in the direction of stricter compliance with the provisions prescribing time limits and limitation.
This Court is conscious of the fact that applications seeking condonation of delay have to be liberally construed and a pragmatic, justice oriented approach is to be adopted and that each day’s delay need not be explained but in the instant case, there is delay of about two years and three months which remains substantially unexplained. In the absence of any worthwhile explanation for the delay occasioned, this
Court is not inclined to condone the delay, as the sanctity of justice dispensation system is to be respected and speculative litigation deserves to be discouraged.
In view of the aforesaid, this application is dismissed.
C.M. No.18353/2014 (u/O XLI Rule 3A r/w Sec. 151 CPC & Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act)
There is delay of 828 days’ in filing the accompanying appeal.
The impugned judgment is of 1st May, 2012. In the instant application seeking condonation of delay, it stands categorically asserted that after passing of the impugned judgment, counsel for appellant had applied for certified copy which was handed over to appellant, who in
June, 2012 had further handed it over to some other counsel engaged by co-villagers, who were pursuing the appeal against the impugned judgment. It is also averred in this application that in September, 2014, 2014:DHC:5894
LA.APP No.371/2014 Page 2 appellant had come to know that no appeal had been filed on his behalf against the impugned judgment and thereafter, he had again applied for certified copy of impugned order and judgment in September, 2014 and for certain other reasons, the appeal could be filed only in November, 2014.
A Division Bench of this Court in ‘Delhi Development Authority vs. R.S. Jindal’ 2007 (10) AD Delhi 42 has reiterated in no uncertain terms that delay in filing of an appeal has to be satisfactorily or reasonably explained and that we are gradually but certainly moving in the direction of stricter compliance with the provisions prescribing time limits and limitation.
This Court is conscious of the fact that applications seeking condonation of delay have to be liberally construed and a pragmatic, justice oriented approach is to be adopted and that each day’s delay need not be explained but in the instant case, there is delay of about two years and three months which remains substantially unexplained. In the absence of any worthwhile explanation for the delay occasioned, this
Court is not inclined to condone the delay, as the sanctity of justice dispensation system is to be respected and speculative litigation deserves to be discouraged.
In view of the aforesaid, this application is dismissed.
LA.APP. 371/2014
Impugned judgment grants compensation for ‘A’ category of land
@ `19,43,500/- per acre with consequential benefits to respondents in respect of their land situated in village Sanoth, Delhi, which was
LA.APP No.371/2014 Page 3 acquired vide Notification of 6th July, 2004, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Since appellant’s application seeking condonation of delay stands dismissed, therefore, this appeal is dismissed as time barred. Even on merits, impugned order suffers from no infirmity or illegality, as it grants compensation at par with compensation granted to similarly situated persons in LA.APP No. 266/2008, Jai Singh Vs. Union of India & Anr., decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 23rd August, 2011.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 11, 2014 r
Impugned judgment grants compensation for ‘A’ category of land
@ `19,43,500/- per acre with consequential benefits to respondents in respect of their land situated in village Sanoth, Delhi, which was
LA.APP No.371/2014 Page 3 acquired vide Notification of 6th July, 2004, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Since appellant’s application seeking condonation of delay stands dismissed, therefore, this appeal is dismissed as time barred. Even on merits, impugned order suffers from no infirmity or illegality, as it grants compensation at par with compensation granted to similarly situated persons in LA.APP No. 266/2008, Jai Singh Vs. Union of India & Anr., decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 23rd August, 2011.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 11, 2014 r