Satya Narayan vs Union Of India & Anr.
2014 Latest Caselaw 5874 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                   Date of Decision: November 17, 2014
+     LA.APP. 377/2014
      SATYA NARAYAN                                      ..... Appellant
                  Through:              Mr. M.C. Verma, Advocate

                          versus

      UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                              ..... Respondents
                    Through:            Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak,
                                        Advocate for respondent No.1-UOI
                                        Ms. Mrilani Sen Gupta &
                                        Mr. Mrinmoi Chatterjee,
                                        Advocates for respondent No.2-
                                        DDA

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                          JUDGMENT

% ORAL

C.M. No.18850/2014 (u/O XLI R 3 A CPC r/w Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act)

There is delay of 885 days' in filing the accompanying appeal. The impugned judgment is of 5th March, 2012. In the instant application seeking condonation of delay, it is categorically asserted that after passing of the impugned judgment, counsel for appellant had applied for its certified copy which was handed over to appellant in May, 2012, who had further handed it over to some villagers along with certain blank papers signed by him under an impression that the appeal will be filed on his behalf. It is further stated that it was only in September, 2014

LA.APP No. 377/2014 Page 1 that the appellant came to know that no appeal had been filed on his behalf and appellant had then instructed the present counsel to file appeal in October, 2014 and hence, this appeal.

The aforesaid explanation for the delay occasioned is hardly convincing as it is not the case of the appellant/applicant that his counsel had not informed about the impugned decision by the Reference Court. Names of those villagers have not been disclosed to whom certified copy of impugned judgment along with certain blank papers signed by appellant was handed over to file the appeal. No worthwhile explanation is forthcoming as to why till September, 2014 appellant had not himself ensured about the progress in the appeal sought to be filed on his behalf.

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 limits and limitation.

In the absence of any worthwhile explanation for the delay occasioned, 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.

In view of the aforesaid, this application seeking condonation of inordinate delay is dismissed.

LA.APP. 377/2014 Impugned judgment grants compensation for 'A' category of land

LA.APP No. 377/2014 Page 2 @ `19,43,500/- per acre with consequential benefits to respondents in respect of their land situated in village Sanoth, Delhi, which was acquired vide Notification of 27th January, 2003, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Since appellant's application seeking condonation of delay stands dismissed, therefore, this appeal is dismissed as time barred. Even on merits, impugned order suffers from no infirmity or illegality, as it grants compensation at par with compensation granted to similarly situated persons 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.

                                                        (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                          JUDGE

NOVEMBER 17, 2014
r




LA.APP No. 377/2014                                                  Page 3