Delhi High Court
Raj Kumar & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr on 11 July, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 11th July, 2018
+ LA.APP. 198/2016 & CM No.26649/2016 (for condonation of
3109 days delay in filing the appeal).
RAJ KUMAR & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Deepak Khosla, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain and Ms. Jyoti
Tyagi, Adv. for R-1.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen Gupta and Ms.
Niharika Jauhari, Advs. for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
impugns the judgment [dated 24th August, 2007 in LAC No.127/1/2006
(Old No.119/2003) of the Court of the Additional District Judge (LAC),
Delhi] on a Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,
enhancing the compensation for the acquired land of the appellants. The
appellants seek further enhancement.
2. This appeal, accompanied with CM No.26649/2016 for condonation
of 3109 days delay in filing thereof, came up before this Court first on 27th
July, 2016 when notice of the appeal as well as the application for
condonation of delay was issued. The respondent no.1 Union of India
(UOI) has not filed any reply. Reply to the application for condonation of
delay has however been filed by the respondent no.2 Delhi Development
Authority (DDA).
3. The counsels have been heard.
4. The appellants seeks condonation of delay of 3109 days pleading (i)
that the appellants are totally illiterate and are not conversant with the
intricacies of law and specifically the law of limitation; (ii) the appellants
were always under bona fide belief that they can prefer appeal after receipt
of enhanced compensation; (iii) that even the counsel for the appellants did
not advise the appellants to file further appeal before the High Court under
the provisions of Section 54 of the Act; (iv) that the appellants, in the last
week of May, 2016 met other villagers whose land was also acquired by
the same award and during the general discussion it came to the knowledge
of the appellants that the amount has been further enhanced by the Supreme
Court; (v) thereafter the appellants contacted the present counsel who
advised them to file appeal; and, (vi) after applying for and obtaining
certified copy, this appeal was filed.
5. The counsel for the appellants has fairly stated that he is conscious of
the dicta of the Full Bench of this Court in Tej Pratap Singh Vs. Union of
India 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8368 on a reference made by the same
Hon'ble Judge who on the first date when this appeal came up before this
Court issued notice. As per the said dicta, it cannot be said that in all
matters for enhancement of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act,
the delay has to be condoned or a lenient view has to be taken. It was held
that condonation of delay is not a vested right or granted on asking in all
appeals seeing enhancement of compensation for acquisition of land; the
social and economic condition of the appellant, including his educational
background and other limitations are the most important and determinative
factors to be taken into consideration so as to not deny justice and to
correct disparity; at the same time, indulgence need not be bestowed to the
negligent and fence sitters, who had economic resources and were well
versed and could have enforced right to appeal but for multifarious reasons
were satisfied and did not pursue and enforce their right.
6. The respondent no.2 DDA, in its reply, has referred to (i) Mewa
Ram Vs. State of Haryana 1986 (4) SCC 151 holding that merely because
enhanced compensation has been granted in other cases, the same would
not be a ground for filing of the appeal with condonation of delay to seek
enhancement of compensation; (ii) Basawaraj Vs. The Special Land
Acquisition Officer AIR 2014 SC 746, to contend that law of limitation has
to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes, even if it
may harshly affect a particular party; and, (iii) Brijesh Kumar Vs. State of
Haryana (2014) 4 Scale 50 to contend that if some person has taken a
relief by approaching the Court immediately after the cause of action had
arisen, other persons cannot take benefit thereof at a belated state. The
reply also mentions the factum of the reference which was then pending
before the Full Bench of this Court as aforesaid.
7. I have considered the application for condonation of delay on the
parameters laid down by the Full Bench.
8. Though the appeal is by three appellants but the appeal as well as the
application for condonation of delay are accompanied with the affidavit
only of appellant no.3 Pawan Kumar. No affidavit even of the other two
appellants has been filed.
9. Though it is vaguely pleaded that the three appellants are illiterate
and not conversant with the intricacies of law but no particulars whatsoever
of the educational qualification of either of the three appellants or as to the
vocation of the three appellants or even the age of the three appellants have
been pleaded / disclosed. The averments made in the application, blaming
the Advocate earlier engaged, are equally vague. No name of the then
Advocate of the appellants has been disclosed and it is not even pleaded
that the appellants approached the said Advocate to find out the outcome of
the Reference under Section 18 in which the appellants must have appeared
as witnesses. A Reference under Section 18 is to be decided like a suit,
after recording of evidence and which requires consistent interaction with
Advocate and it is inconceivable that the appellants during the pendency of
proceedings before the Reference Court were not aware of the stages
thereof. No particulars in this regard also have been pleaded, as to when the
appellants last contacted the Advocate appearing for them in the Reference
Court. The Advocates in conducting land acquisition matters are known to
collect their fees after the enhancement in compensation is granted and it is
inconceivable that the appellants were not aware of the outcome of the
Reference. In any case, as aforesaid, the application for condonation of
delay has been filed merely to fulfil a requirement and perhaps in the
standard form, without any relation whatsoever to the facts concerning the
appellants. If the appellants are old and the litigation was being pursued by
their children, no particulars of the said children also are given and it is not
pleaded that the children of the appellants are also illiterate.
10. Though it is pleaded that the appellants learnt of the enhancement
granted by the Supreme Court in May, 2016 but without giving the date on
which the High Court or the Supreme Court so granted enhancement. No
particulars of the persons from whom the appellants learnt of enhancement
have also been given. There is no explanation that if the said persons are
from the same village, why the appellants did not come to know of
enhancement earlier. The date chosen of learning of the enhancement in
May, 2016 is just to justify the filing of the appeal in July, 2016. Else, there
is no effort to even prima facie satisfy the Court of the appellants having so
learnt of enhancement in May, 2016.
11. Thus, on the anvil of the dicta in Tej Pratap Singh supra, no case for
condonation of delay is made out. CM No.26649/2016 is dismissed.
12. Axiomatically, LA.App. No.198/2016 is barred by time and is
dismissed.
No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
JULY 11, 2018
'pp'..
