This appeal is preferred against the judgement and award dated 4.1.2001 passed by Additional District Judge, Allahabad in Land Acquisition Reference No. 154 of 1991 between Rahmatullah Vs. State of U.P. and others.
This appeal is preferred with delay condonation application to condone the delay in filing the appeal as there was delay of 2 years and 228 days.
Notices were issued to the respondents. However when the notices were not returned back, the service on the respondents is deemed to be sufficient.
Heard learned counsels for the appellant on his delay condonation application.
The grounds for condoning the delay as shown in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application and it is stated that the judgement was delivered on 4.1.2001 and applied for certified copy on 19.2.2001 and was received in the office of Special Land Acquisition Officer on 24.3.2001.
That after receipt of copy of the judgement, a letter was sent to the D.G.C. (Civil) for giving his opinion and another letter was sent to Executive Engineer, Gyanpur Nahar Prakhand, Varanasi for his recommendation for filing the appeal.
That the D.G.C. (civil) sent his opinion and opined that there is no solid ground for filing the appeal against the judgement and decree dated 4.1.2001 as such in his opinion it is not a fit case for filing the appeal.
That on 4.1.2001 there was some mistake of the date of the notification in the judgement, D.G.C. (Civil) was asked for filing the correction application and on 31.5.2001 an application was filed by A.D.G.C. (Civil) for making correction, the said application still pending in the Court of A.D.J.
Again the opinion from the D.G.C. (Civil) was asked who gave his opinion on 11.6.2001 that the appeal be filed in the High Court in the interest of the government.
Then on 11.6.2001 the District Magistrate, Allahabad sent a letter to the Secretary U.P. Irrigation Department-3, Lucknow for granting permission.
Since the check list was not sent by the District Magistrate while seeking permission, and by the another letter dated 18.6.2001 the same was sent to the Secretary U.P. government and thereafter on 19.7.2001 a reminder was sent by by District Magistrate to the State Government and when no permission was received, another letter dated 8.8.2001 was sent to the U.P. State, Irrigation Department.
Again a letter was sent on 27.10.2001 Deputy Secretary required some documents from the District Magistrate, Allahabad which were sent to the State Government by the District Magistrate on 7.1.2002. When no permission was granted again a letter by way of reminder on 22.11.2002 was sent and reminders on 2.12.2002, 15.1.2003, 20.2.2003, 28.6.2003 and 6.9.2003 were sent and ultimately on 23.8.2003 State Government granted permission which was received in the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 24.10.2003 and then an official of the Special Land Acquisition Officer's office approached the D.G.C. (Civil) regarding the amount of the fees involved in the case and then official approached the Chief Standing Counsel for filing the appeal and the case was allotted to the Standing Counsel on 31.10.2003 and ultimately appeal was filed on 19.12.2003.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is bonafide and has been explained and thus, the delay in filing the appeal be condoned.
I am unable to accept the explanation of delay, the appellant has to explain day to day delay. There is no explanation that the required documents were sent to the government on 7.1.2002 and the grant of permission on 23.8.2003 almost after the delay of 1 year and 7 months is not explained by the State. They should be filed affidavit from the State Government official representing the office of the Secretary Irrigation Department U.P. Lucknow but there is no such affidavit filed on behalf of the secretary to explain the delay. It should be explained why the permission granted on 23.8.2003 reached in the office of the S.L.A.O. on 24.10.2003.
After the delay of two month, even after receipt of the permission on 24.10.2003 this appeal is preferred on 19.12.2003. Almost two months which is not explained satisfactorily. In office of the Chief Post Master General Vs. Living Media J.T. 2012(2) S.C. 483 Supreme Court refused to condone the inordinate delay of 427 days in filing SLP paras 12 and 13 of the said judgment are quoted below:-
"12) It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited 6 bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government.
13) In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural redtape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay."
In the present case, there is delay of 2 years and 228 days which has not been explained satisfactorily and I find no sufficient grounds to condone the delay. So far the merit of the appeal is concerned, the enhanced amount as awarded by the impugned judgement must have been realised by the claimant respondent long before. Supreme Court in Stanes Higher Secondary School Vs. Special Tehsildar (L.A.) A.I.R. 2010 SC 1323 has taken into consideration the "Laws Delay" which may not be attributable to anyone in the land acquisition matters. In the instant case also the matter has become 10 years old since the date on which amount was enhanced by the reference court.
However, I have gone through the order of the Reference Court which has enhanced the compensation to the tune of Rs. 24,615/- per bigha and the amount enhanced is simply Rs. 2671/- which is very meagre amount and the order passed by the Reference Court suffers no illegality.
Accordingly, the appellant has failed to explain the delay of 2 years and 228 days and the cause shown by them is not sufficient. Hence the delay condonation application is rejected and the appeal is also dismissed as barred by time.
Order Date :- 15.10.2012 Dhirendra