Union Of India (Uoi) vs Shri Birbal (Deceased) Through ...
2006 Latest Caselaw 765 Del

JUDGMENT

Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 24.12.2003.

2. The land in the revenue estate of village Beharipur measuring about 1487 bighas and 15 biswas was acquired including the land belonging to Sh. Birbal, predecessor in interest of the respondents in the present appeal. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued on 26.08.1967. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 28.05.1969 and the award was made by the Collector being award No. 15/83-84 on 30.06.1983. The Collector had divided the acquired land into two categories i.e. category-A and category-B. owners of category-A were awarded compensation @ 3500/- per bigha while the owners of category-B were awarded compensation @ Rs. 3230/- per bigha. The claimants being dissatisfied from the award of the Collector filed reference petition under Section 18 of the Act which was sent for adjudication to the Additional District Judge who enhanced the compensation by fixing the market value of the acquired land at a uniform rate of Rs. 7,500/- per bigha.

3. The UOI felt aggrieved from the said judgment and filed the present appeal on the ground that the market value assessed by the learned ADJ beyond Rs. 5280/- per bigha and Rs. 5010/- per bigha dependent upon the category of the land was unjustified and was not supported by any evidence on record. The learned reference court after considering the entire evidence produced by the parties on record had framed the following two issues:-

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to enhanced compensation, if so, to what amount

2. Relief.

4. The parties had led limited evidence while the petitioner placed entire reliance upon the judgment of the High Court in RFA 387/2000 decided on 26.7.2002 Ex.P1. The respondents only filed an award Ex.R1 and no other evidence was led by the parties. The learned reference court while relying upon the judgment of the High Court found that the potentially, quality and advantages of the land were similar and there was no reason why the claimants be not awarded the compensation similar to Ex.P1. While enhancing the compensation to Rs. 7500/- per bigha, the learned reference court granted all statutory benefits to the claimants and held as under:-

I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence and my findings to the issues are as under:-

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that valuation of land by the LAC is not reasonable as the LAC has not adopted correct method of valuation. He has relied upon Judgment Ex.P1 and submitted that market value of the land of the petitioner should also be fixed at the same rate which has been fixed in the case of Ex.P-1.

I have perused the Judgment Ex.P-1. In the said Judgment, the market value of the land of village Beharipur has been fixed at Rs. 7,500/- per bigha as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act i.e. 26.8.1967. The judgment Ex.P-1 pertains to the same notification, award and village for which the petitioner is claiming enhanced compensation. The quality, potentiality and advantages of the land in question and the land involved in Ex.P-1 are also same. Since in Ex.P- 1, the court has assessed the market value of land at Rs. 7,500/- per bigha, the petitioners are also entitled to the same amount of compensation for their acquired land.

The Ld. Counsels for the respondents have not been able to controvert this valuation or point out anything which may lead this Court deviate from valuation arrived at in judgment Ex.P-1.

In view of the above discussions, it is hereby held that petitioners are entitled to enhancement in the compensation @ Rs.7,500/- per bigha for their acquired land except Khasra No.558(0-5) and Khasra No. 689/562 (14-17) as per share mentioned in statement under 19 of the L.A. Act. Issue is decided accordingly.

5. The challenge to the above findings of the reference court is that the reference court should have taken into consideration only Ex.R1 and the compensation awarded by the High Court in similar circumstances was not truly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. We may notice that the present appeal is barred by delay of 250 days and there is also a delay of 105 days in refiling of the appeal. The appellants have filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condensation of delay, being CM No. 6995/2005 and for condensation of delay in refiling being CM No. 6996/2005 and both these applications are contested by the respondents. In the application for condensation of delay, it has been stated that on 26.3.2004 in furtherance to the direction issued on 22.3.2004 to file an appeal against award dated 24.12.2003, after checking the same was sent to the Legal Department for opinion which was received back on 8.3.2004 and was again sent to the DLA. Finally the file was received on 25.3.2004 and marked to TNLA with direction to do the needful. The money was asked from the Finance Department which was paid later and the file was made available to the counsel on 18.9.2004, where after there were holidays and the draft appeal was prepared. The final appeal was filed in this Court on 9.11.2004 which was returned in objection and then was refiled on 5.4.2005 and again on 25.4.2005. The award was made on 24.12.2003. The certified copy of this was applied on 26.4.2004 i.e. after the prescribed period of limitation was over. The copy was ready on 13.5.2004 and was received by the respondents on the same date. In the entire application there is no reason which would explain the delay as to why the certified copy was applied after the prescribed period of limitation was over. There is also no explanation as to why the appeal was not filed immediately after 13.5.2004 despite the fact that the file was placed before the legal experts and it is not believable that despite such experts looking into the file, no effective steps were taken nearly for an year in filing the present appeal. The Government is not to explain each day?s delay but it is obligatory on their part to at least render a sufficient and plausible explanation for condensation of delay by and large. Obligation to explain the delay by giving a sufficient and reasonable cause is an obligation of any applicant. The liberty granted to the State cannot be construed as an immunity to the provisions of the Limitation Act. A definite right accrues in favor of the other side and delay cannot be condoned in a mechanical manner. At this stage, reference can also be made to a judgment of this Court in the case of RFA No. 80/1982 titled as Delhi Wakf Board v. Balbir Singh decided on 20.3.2006.

6. Keeping in view the above principles in mind where different judgments of the Supreme Court were also discussed on that aspect, we do not see any reason to condone the delay and this negligent conduct of the applicant is personified even in refiling as there was a delay of 105 days. The cumulative effect of the above is only callousness and carelessness. It was obligatory upon the part of the State to act expeditiously and in conformity with the statutory provisions. Thus, we decline to condone the delay. Besides holding that this appeal itself is not maintainable we may even make a reference to the case of merits.

7. The Collector had awarded compensation of Rs. 3500/- to 3230/- per bigha for Group A and Group B respectively. This compensation was enhanced to a uniform rate of Rs. 7500/- per bigha with other statutory benefits by the Reference Court while relying upon the judgment of the Court which was produced and proved on record as EX. P1. Ex.P1 related to a notification issued under Section 4 on 26.8.1967 in relation to the land situated in Village Biharipur. Taking into consideration that the location and the land was somewhat similar, the same compensation was awarded by the learned Reference Court. The main grievance of the learned Counsel for the appellant was that the Court has not taken into consideration Ex.R1. The other contention is that the State had preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court out of Ex.P1 and as such the judgment has not attained finality. Both these arguments are without any merit. Firstly, the pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court would not reduce the binding nature of the precedence Ex.P1. The judgment has already attained finality till the High Court and the learned Reference Court has relied upon such a judgment which also we have no reason to differ with and adoption of that judgment as the basic ground for granting the compensation cannot be faulted with. As far as the Ex. R1 is concerned, it is an award which was tendered in evidence and it was for the respondents to show that Ex.R1 has a direct bearing on the extent of compensation payable to the claimants in relation to the land in question. As such they cannot argue that the findings of the trial court suffer from an error of law or appreciation of evidence, for their own fault.

8. In view of the above detailed discussion, we find no merit in the application being CMs No. 6995/2006 and 6996/2006 as well as the appeal and all are dismissed, while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.