Mukesh v. UOI & Anr.

1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 1625 days in filing the appeal. It is stated by the Appellant that the. cause of delay in filing the appeal was that the counsel before the Reference Court did not inform the Appellant about the decision of the case in time and also did not guide the Appellant 'about filing of the appeal before this Court against the impugned judgment. It is further stated by the 'Appellant that due to financial crisis he could not take timely action. However, after coming to know the decision of the Reference LA. APP. 4412013 Pa'e I of 3 2013:DHC:7905 Court, the Appellant immediately filed the present appeal. The application is supported by the Affidavit of the Appellant. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned subject to the condition that the Appellant shall not be entitled to interest for the aforesaid period. Application stands disposed of. LA.APP. 44/20 13 The present appeal has, been preferred against the judgment/decree dated 29.08.08 passed by the Reference Court on the ground that the learned Additional District Judge erred in holding the correct share of the Appellant and failed to mention Khãsra number viz., 15/15(4-16). Aggrieved by the wrong apportionment of the 'share and failure to mention correct Khasra number, the Appellant filed a Review Application before the said Court. However, the learned ADJ dismissed the said Review Application on 24th September 2012 on account of delay in filing the same. In the present Appeal the Appellant seeks remand of the present' case to the Reference Court for considering apportionment in respect of the share of the Appellant under Section 30- 31 of the Land Acquisition Act and Khasra number 'mentioned hereinabove in accordance with law. Upon issuance of the notice to the Respondents, the learned counsel for the Respondents does not oppose the remand of the matter to the Reference Court for a fresh determination of the LA. APP. 4412013 Paffe 2 of 3 share of the Appellant and inclusion of the Khasra number therein. It is accordingly directed that the matter be remitted back to the learned ADJ to decide the issue of share of the Appellant afresh after hearing the parties. LA.APP. 44/2013 stands disposed of accordingly REVA KHETRAPAL • (JUDGE) March 15, 2013. /