* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: November 17, 2014
+ LA.APP. 313/2014
UNION OF INDIA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Siddharth Panda, Advocate
versus
SURAJ BHAN & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Kunal Sharma, Advocate for
respondent No.3-DDA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% ORAL C.M. No.11827/2014 (u/S 151 CPC) There is delay of 248 days in re-filing the accompanying appeal. For reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and delay is condoned.
Application is disposed of.
C.M. No.11825/2014 (u/O 41 R 3A CPC & Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act) There is delay of 70 days' in filing the accompanying appeal. The reasons for the delay occasioned as put-forth in paragraphs No. 3 & 4 of the instant application are nothing but bureaucratic lethargy in filing the accompanying appeal.
Applying the parameters governing condonation of delay, as LA.APP No. 313/2014 Page 1 reiterated by the Apex Court in Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy (2013) 12 SCC 649 to the instant case, I find that delay occasioned has not been satisfactorily explained. Hence, this application is dismissed.
LA.APP No. 313/2014 & C.M. No.11824/2014 Impugned judgment grants compensation for 'A' category of land @ `16,50,000/- per acre with consequential benefits to respondents in respect of their land situated in village Dhulsiras, Delhi, which was acquired vide Notification of 13th December, 2000, 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.576/2008, 'Suraj Bhan & ors. Vs. Union of India & anr., rendered on 31st October, 2012. Application for stay is dismissed as infructuous.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 17, 2014
r
LA.APP No. 313/2014 Page 2