Nanak Chand Sood vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2005 Latest Caselaw 606 Del

JUDGMENT

B.C. Patel, C.J.

1. CM Nos. 4175 and 4176 of 2005 are applications filed for recall of the order dated 18.7.2002 dismissing the appeal for non prosecution and for condensation of the delay in filing the said application. The applications have been filed more than two and a half years after the appeal was dismissed for non prosecution. From a reading of these applications there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay. All that has been stated is that due to an oversight the counsel did not notice listing of the appeal before the Court on 18.7.2002 and only on 1.11.2004 while inspecting the court file the counsel came to know about the dismissal of the appeal in default, This can hardly be a satisfactory explanation.

2. Despite the aforesaid fact, we have heard the learned counsel for the appellant even on merits. Learned counsel has not been able to point out the relevance of the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14586/91 titled Basant Kumar v. Union of India which was referred to at the stage of admission. In fact, learned counsel for the appellant still does not know the fate of the said Special Leave Petition.

3. Be that as it may, in so far as the merits discussed in the impugned order by the learned single Judge are concerned, it has to be noticed that the land in question formed subject matter of acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Prior to the acquiistion, three original owners had entered into an agreement with two persons jointly for further sale of the land including Gurcharan Singh Gill. Instead of two persons entering into any further transaction with the appellant herein it is Gurcharan Singh Gill alone, who entered into the transaction. Learned single Judge came to the conclusion that there was not enough authority with Gurcharan Singh Gill to enter into any further agreements and such an agreement could have been executed only jointly by two persons. We see no infirmity in this reasoning as the relevant clause of the agreement refers to the authorisation of the sale of "vendees". Reference to the vendees is to the two purchasers from the original owners.

4. The second aspect which weighed with the learned single Judge is the fact that the consideration received by Gurcharan Singh Gill was pocketed by him without having been passed on to the owners.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks to contend that under the terms of the agreement the earnest money could have been retained by Gurcharan Singh Gill and only the balance consideration had to be paid to the owners. In our view, the same would not be relevant since the undisputed fact is that no part of the amount paid by the appellant was passed on to the original owners. We find no reason to interfere even on this count.

5. For the aforesaid reasons we see no ground to interfere in the appeal nor any merits in two applications. Dismissed.