Delhi High Court
Shikhar Tyagi vs Uoi on 3 December, 2014
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: December 03, 2014
+ LA.APP. 382/2014
SHIKHAR TYAGI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Gagan Gupta, Advocate
versus
UOI ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
C.M.No.19868-69/2014
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
C.M.No.19870/2014 (u/S 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 r/w Section151
CPC)
For reasons stated in the application, delay of 39 days' in refiling
the accompanying appeal is condoned.
Application is disposed of.
C.M.No.19867/2014 (under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 &
under Section 151 CPC)
There is exceptionally inordinate delay of 5½ years in preferring
LA.APP No.282/2014 Page 1
the accompanying appeal by the applicant. The Reference Court had
awarded compensation for the land of the applicant in Village- Burari,
Delhi in the year 2008.
The reasons put-forth for the delay occasioned is that the mother of
applicant was pursuing the matter pertaining to enhancement of
compensation of the acquired land. It is submitted that in the year 2009,
appellant had received notice of an appeal filed by respondent-Union of
India against the judgment and award of the learned Reference Court and
thereafter, he had entrusted the case to his counsel and appellant and his
mother were under the impression that besides contesting the appeal filed
by respondent-Union of India, their counsel has also filed an appeal for
enhancement of compensation. It is averred that the appellant attained
the age of majority in August, 2013 and recently only he became aware
that no appeal for enhancement of compensation had been filed against
the award of 23rd August, 2008 passed by the Reference Court and it is
prayed that appellant has lost his valuable land in the acquisition process
and serious prejudice would be caused if delay in filing the
accompanying appeal is not condoned.
When delay is extraordinarily inordinate, there is onerous
responsibility on the shoulders of the applicants to furnish worthwhile
explanation for the delay occasioned. To explain the inordinate delay of
more than five years, the reason put-forth by the applicants is that the
widowed mother of the appellant, who was the Power of Attorney Holder
on behalf of appellant, was pursuing the case but no worthwhile
explanation is forth-coming as to why she was ignorant about the appeal
LA.APP No.282/2014 Page 2
proceedings despite being highly literate, as she is stated to be working as
teacher in a reputed school. Furthermore, it has not been explained as to
what had prevented appellant to file an appeal after August, 2013 when
he attained majority till November, 2014. What counts is not the length of
delay but the sufficiency of cause which had occasioned the delay.
The Apex Court in Brijesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (2014) 4
Scale 50 has reiterated as under:-
"11. The courts should not adopt an injustice-oriented
approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay.
However the court while allowing such application has to draw a
distinction between delay and inordinate delay for want of bona
fides of an inaction or negligence would deprive a party of the
protection of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Sufficient
cause is a condition precedent for exercise of discretion by the
Court for condoning the delay. This Court has time and again
held that when mandatory provision is not complied with and
that delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly
explained, the court cannot condone the delay on sympathetic
grounds alone."
A Division Bench of this Court in „Delhi Development Authority
vs. R.S. Jindal‟ 2007 (10) AD Delhi 42 has reiterated in no uncertain
terms that delay in filing of an appeal has to be satisfactorily or
reasonably explained and that we are gradually but certainly moving in
the direction of stricter compliance with the provisions prescribing time
LA.APP No.282/2014 Page 3
limits and limitation.
In the absence of any worthwhile explanation for the inordinate
delay, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay, as the sanctity of
justice dispensation system is to be respected and speculative litigation
deserves to be discouraged. Such a view is being taken as Special Leave
Petition of other claimants is said to be pending before the Apex Court.
In view of the aforesaid, this application seeking condonation of
inordinate delay is dismissed.
LA.APP No.382/2014
Impugned judgment grants compensation for 'A' category of land
@ `15.70 lacs per acre with consequential benefits to appellant in respect
of their land situated in village Burari, Delhi, which was acquired vide
Notification of 18th July, 2003 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894.
Since appellant's application seeking condonation of delay stands
dismissed, therefore, this appeal and application are dismissed as time
barred.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 03, 2014
r
LA.APP No.282/2014 Page 4
