Santosh Devi vs Union Of India & Anr.
2014 Latest Caselaw 7015 Del

$~4
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                       Date of Decision: December 19, 2014

+            LA.APP. 403/2014 & C.M.APPLN.20823/2014
      SANTOSH DEVI                                        ..... Appellant
                            Through:     Mr. Ravinder Narwal, Advocate

                   versus

      UNION OF INDIA & ANR                                 .....Respondents
                    Through:             Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Advocate

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                              JUDGMENT

% (ORAL)

Impugned judgment grants compensation @ Rs.19,13,765/- per acre for appellants' land in Village Sanoth, Delhi which was acquired in pursuance of Notification of 27th January, 2003 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

There is delay of more than six years in filing the instant appeal. The reason put forth by appellant in C.M.APPLN.20823/2014 for the delay occasioned is that her brother-Rajpal was looking after the litigation and negligence on the part of her brother has led to the delay, which is neither intentional nor deliberate and the case of the appellant is covered by the decision in LA.APP No. 266/2008, Jai Singh Vs. Union of India & Anr., decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 23rd August, 2011 and so, on parity basis, the compensation needs to be LA.APP. 403/2014 Page 1 enhanced @ Rs.19,43,500/- per acre, as the land of appellant is of 'A' category.

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that there is no worthwhile explanation for the delay occasioned and the reason put forth for the inordinate delay is a lame excuse, which is not substantiated. The version of appellant's brother is neither elicited nor brought on record. It is pointed out that this is a classic case of speculative litigation and unhealthy trend of speculative litigation needs to be curbed with a heavy hand. It is asserted by learned counsel for respondents that since the delay is not reasonably explained, therefore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed as time barred.

During the course of hearing, it is not disclosed that whether appellant has sought any explanation from her brother about the delay occasioned. It needs no reiteration that the discretion to condone the delay must be reasonably exercised.

Applying the dictum of the Apex Court in Lanka Venkateswarlu (Dead) by LRs. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others (2011) 4 SCC 363 and Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy (2013) 12 SCC 649 to the facts of the instant case, I find that the inordinate delay occasioned has not been satisfactorily explained. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as time barred.

The appeal and the application are accordingly disposed of.

                                                        (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                           JUDGE
      DECEMBER 19, 2014
      s
LA.APP. 403/2014                                                     Page 2