S.K. Enterprises vs Delhi Development Authority
1993 Latest Caselaw 606 Del

JUDGMENT

Sat Pal, J.

(1) This application has been field on behalf of the respondent Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'theDDA') under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In this application it has been prayed that the delay in filing the objections be condoned.

(2) In para 3 of the application it has been stated that the notice offering of the award was received by the Dda on 1/10/1992. It is further stated that the Executive Engineer of the Division concerned prepared his comments on the award on 15/10/1992 and the same were sent to the Chief Engineer for approval on the same date. Thereafter the Chief Engineer gave his approval on 4/11/1992 and the file was sent to the legal cell of DDA. On 18/11/1992 the legal cell of Dda is stated to have given its approval. It is then stated in the application that the file was mixed up with some other file and came to the notice of the concerned officer only on 5/02/1993 and thereafter a panel lawyer was briefed and objections were filed on 18/02/1993.Reply to this application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner and it has been stated in the reply that the explanation given by the Dda is not satisfactory and as such the delay should not be condoned.

(3) Ms. Ansuya Salwan, learned Counsel for the Dda submitted that the delay has been explained in the application and the Dda being a Government department and the file having been misplaced, a liberal view should be taken and the delay should be condoned. In support of her contention she has placed reliance on a Supreme Court judgment inG. Ramegowde Major and (Others v. Special Land Acquisition OfficerBangalore, .

(4) Mr. Rajiv Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, however,drew my attention to the notice sent by this Court regarding filing of the award and from the notice I find that the notice in fact was served on the DDA on 24th Septembar, 1992 and not on 1/10/1992 as stated in the application. From the Court record I further find that the Senior Law Officer of the Dda after the receipt of the notice, had even moved an application or inspection of the Court record on 25/09/1992 and the records were inspected on 28/09/1992. Since the facts were not stated correctly in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit of an officer of the Dda, I find no reason to allow this application.Even otherwise the delay has not been properly explained. In para 7 of the application it has been stated that the file was not available and got mixed up with some other files and came to the notice of the concerned officer only on 15/02/1993 but no affidavit of the concerned officer has been filed to explain the delay. The time taken by the Chief Engineer for recording approval has also not been properly explained. In this connection I mav refer to a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India y.E. Kuttappan, . In this case the objections which were required to be filled on or before 25/10/1988were filed on 6/12/1988 and the objections were held to be timebarred.

(5) In view of the above discussion the application is dismissed.IA 2226193

(6) Since I have dismissed the application field on behalf of the DDA under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condensation of delay in filing the objections, the objections being time barred are also dismissed.S. No. 2980-A192

(7) The objections filed on behalf of the Dda having been dismissed, the award dated 30/06/1992 is made a rule of the Court. Let a decree be drawn in terms of the award. The award shall form part of thedecree. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. The petitioner will also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the award till the date of the decree. In case the decretal amount is not paid within two months from the date of the decree, the petitioner will also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the decree till realisation.