Delhi High Court
Shri Rakesh vs Union Of India & Anr. on 9 December, 2014
Author: Sunil Gaur
$~20 to 22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: December 09, 2014
+ (i) LA.APP. 314/2013
SHRI RAKESH KUMAR ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak and
Mr.Sunil Kumar Jha and Mr.
Kushal Raj, Advocates for
Respondent No.1/UOI
Mr. Abhishek Kr. Singh, Advocate
for Mr. Kunal Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No.2-DDA
+ (ii) LA.APP. 316/2013
SHRI RAKESH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak and
Mr.Sunil Kumar Jha and Mr.
Kushal Raj, Advocates for
Respondent No.1/UOI
+ (iii) LA.APP. 157/2014
PRAHLAD SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate
versus
LA.APP. 314 & 316/13 & 157/14 Page 1
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak and
Mr.Sunil Kumar Jha and Mr.
Kushal Raj, Advocates for
Respondent No.1/UOI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
CM No. 19400/2013 in LA.APP. 314/2013
CM No. 19443/2013 in LA.APP. 316/2013 &
CM No. 4736/2014 in LA.APP. 157/2014
In the above captioned three appeals, condonation of delay is
sought on similar grounds and so with the consent of learned counsel for
the parties, these appeals are taken up for hearing together and are being
disposed of by this common judgment.
In the above captioned first two appeals, appellants' lands in
village Rajapur Kalan were acquired in pursuance to Notification of 22nd
August, 2001 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act whereas in the
above-captioned third appeal, the acquisition of the land in the village in
question was in pursuance to Notification of 27 th January, 2003 under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, Reference Court in the
above captioned appeals has relied upon decision of a coordinate bench
of this Court in LA.APP. No. 266/2008 Jai Singh vs. Union of India
decided on 23rd August, 2011 to assess the market value of the acquired
lands in above captioned first two appeals at a uniform rate of
`16,74,500/- per acre with statutory benefits whereas in the above
LA.APP. 314 & 316/13 & 157/14 Page 2
captioned third appeal, the compensation was assessed @ `19,43,500/-
per acre. Pertinently, the variation in the rate of compensation assessed is
due to the time gap between the two Notifications under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act.
To seek enhancement of compensation, learned counsel for
appellants points out that the decision in Jai Singh (supra) is under
challenge before the Apex Court and there are bright chances of
enhancement of compensation in case of similarly situated persons. The
learned counsel for respondent-Union of India submits that the SLPs by
Union of India are also pending before the Apex Court.
Be that as it may.
Condonation of delay in filing these appeals is sought on the
ground of negligence of previous counsel. Learned counsel for appellants
submitted that the previous counsel had not informed the appellants about
the fate of their reference petitions which has occasioned the delay. It is
submitted that the delay is bonafide and unintentional and it deserves to
be condoned as appellants are ready to give up the interest for the period
of delay. Learned counsel for appellants submits that a complaint against
the previous counsel has been recently made on 5th November, 2014
before the Bar Council of Delhi. Thus, it is submitted that there is no
fault of appellants and they ought not to be denied the enhanced
compensation which similarly placed claimants are likely to get from the
Apex Court.
Both the sides have been heard on the applications and the material
on record of these appeals is perused. It is pointed out by learned counsel
for first respondent that there is no whisper in the applications in question
LA.APP. 314 & 316/13 & 157/14 Page 3
about the making of a complaint against the previous counsel. Learned
counsel for respondent No.1 relies upon decisions of the Apex Court in
Lanka Venkateswarlu (Dead) by LRs. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and
Others (2011) 4 SCC 363 and B. Madhuri Goud v. B. Damodar Reddy
(2012) 12 SCC 693 to submit that the discretion to condone the delay
must be exercised reasonably and the entire burden cannot be put on
previous counsel because there is unexplained delay of about one year in
appellants contacting their previous counsel. It was pointed out that the
law of limitation is a substantive law and has definite consequences on
the rights and obligations of the parties and once a valuable right has
accrued in favour of respondent as result of failure on the part of the
claimants, then the delay ought not to be condoned lightly as it will give
rise to speculative litigation.
In rebuttal, learned counsel for appellant/applicant has relied upon
Apex Court's decision in Rafiq and another v. Munshilal and Another
AIR 1981 SC 1400 to submit that because of the default of a counsel, a
party should not be made to suffer and for the delay occasioned, costs can
be imposed which should be directed to be recovered from the previous
counsel.
The submissions advanced by both the sides have been considered
and the decisions relied upon have been perused and thereafter, this Court
is of the considered view that the decision of the Apex Court in Rafiq
(supra) is of no avail to the case of appellants because in the afore-cited
decision, there was no fault of the party whereas in the instant case, there
is unexplained delay of more than one year, which is to the detriment to
appellants/applicants.
LA.APP. 314 & 316/13 & 157/14 Page 4
By applying the dictum of the Apex Court in Lanka Venkateswarlu
(supra) and B. Madhuri Goud (supra), I hold that the inordinate delay of
458 days', 562 days' and 494 days' in respective appeals, does not stand
reasonably explained. Hence, there is no justification for condoning the
delay in filing the accompanying appeals as the aspect of speculative
litigation is writ large on the face of it.
Resultantly, these applications seeking condonation of delay are
hereby dismissed.
Before parting with this judgment, in order to curb the tendency of
speculative litigation, it is deemed appropriate to direct the concerned
Land Acquisition Collectors to ensure that after passing of the Award
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the claimants be put to notice that
they need not file Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 to claim higher compensation and to avail of the remedy under
Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 within three months from
the date of the Award of the Court (upto the Supreme Court of India).
The Divisional Commissioner/Secretary (Revenue), Govt. of NCT of
Delhi, shall ensure that this direction is complied with in letter and spirit
by the concerned Land Acquisition Collectors, who shall make the
claimants aware in Hindi and in writing about Section 28A of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 at the time of pronouncement of the Award and
also at the time of communication of the Award under Sub-Section 2 of
Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Needless to say, this exercise is to be conducted in respect of the
litigation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
With aforesaid directions, these applications are disposed of.
LA.APP. 314 & 316/13 & 157/14 Page 5
LA.APP. 314/2013; LA.APP. 316/2013 & LA.APP. 157/2014
In view of order passed in CM No. 4736/2014; CM No.
19400/2013, the above captioned three appeals are dismissed as time
barred as well as on merits as the compensation has been reasonably
assessed by the Reference Court in the impugned judgments based upon a
decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in LA (APP) No.266/2008
titled Jai Singh v. Union of India decided on 23rd August, 2011.
These three appeals are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 09, 2014
mb/s
LA.APP. 314 & 316/13 & 157/14 Page 6
