Sh.Bijender Singh & Ors. vs Union Of India & Anr.
2014 Latest Caselaw 5873 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                  Date of Decision: November 17, 2014
+     LA.APP. 269/2014
      SH.BIJENDER SINGH & ORS.                 ..... Appellants
                    Through: Mr. S.K.Solanki, Advocate

                         versus

      UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                              ..... Respondents
                    Through:             Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak,
                                         Advocate for respondent No.1-UOI
                                         Mr. Kunal Sharma, Advocate for
                                         respondent No2-DDA

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                         JUDGMENT

% ORAL

C.M. No.18886/2014 (u/O 41 R 3 CPC r/w Section 5 of the Limitation Act)

There is delay of 3½ years in filing the accompanying appeal.

The acquisition of land in question pertains to village Bijwasan, Delhi, which was acquired vide Notification of 13th December, 2000, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Enhancement of compensation is claimed while relying upon Apex Court's decision in S.L.P. No. 18883/2012, Impulse India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Anr., rendered on 13th February, 2014.

Upon notice of this application, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for first respondent submits that merely because appellants are

LA.APP No. 269/2014 Page 1 stated to be poor villagers and maintain that they had no money to file appeal is not a good ground for condoning the delay because the appeal ought to have been filed as indigent person. It is pointed out that plea of appellants being mentally disturbed on account of death of some villagers is utterly vague.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of impugned judgment, I find that when the delay is extraordinarily inordinate, there is onerous responsibility on the shoulders of the applicants to furnish worthwhile explanation for the delay occasioned. Speculative litigation cannot be tolerated at any cost.

Applying the parameters governing condonation of delay, as reiterated by the Apex Court in Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy (2013) 12 SCC 649 to the instant case, I find that delay occasioned has not been satisfactorily explained. Hence, this application is dismissed.

LA.APP. 269/2014

Since appellant's application seeking condonation of delay stands dismissed, therefore, this appeal is dismissed as time barred.

                                                          (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                            JUDGE

NOVEMBER 17, 2014
r




LA.APP No. 269/2014                                                  Page 2