Rajasthan High Court
Erstwhile - Director, M/S Adani ... vs Jayant Kumar Son Of Sitaram on 2 February, 2023
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2023/RJJP/001205]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 168/2022
1. Erstwhile - Director, M/s Adani Power Ltd., Shikhar 9Th
Near Mithkhali Six Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad
(Gujarat), (Now M/s Adani Transmission (India) Ltd.,
Having Its Address At Adani Corporate House,
Shantigram, S G Highway, Ahmedabad, Pin- 382421,
Gujarat, India Through Its Authorised Representative Shri
Himanshu Sharma.
2. D.g.m. M/s Adani Power Ltd. (Now M/s Adani
Transmission (India) Ltd., A-95, Dixit Bhawan, Todi Nagar,
Sikar, Through Shri Himanshu Sharma Son Of Shri Kailash
Chandra Sharma Aged 38 Years, Senior Manager.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Jayant Kumar Son Of Sitaram, Resident Of Village
Gokulpura Tehsil And District Sikar.
2. Municipal Council, Sikar, Through Its Commissioner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Raj Tantia, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Kumar Jain, Adv.
Mr. Manoj Sheoran, Adv. on behalf of
respondent No.2.
Mr. Ajay Nabee, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
ORDER RESERVED ON :: 31.01.2023
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 02.02.2023
By way of revision petition, petitioners have challenged
the judgment & order dated 21.01.2013 passed by the District
Judge, Sikar (for short 'the trial court). They have also filed an
[2023/RJJP/001205] (2 of 4) [CR-168/2022]
application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of
delay of 3487 days.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has filed
reply to the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for
condonation of delay.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties on the
application under Section 5 of Limitation Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due to
peculiar circumstances, petitioners could not challenge the
judgment & order dated 21.01.2013 passed by the trial court in
time. Delay in filing the revision petition is unintentional. So, in
the interest of justice, delay of 3487 days in filing the present
revision petition may be condoned.
Learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and
submitted that the petitioners have not shown any justified cause
in filing the present revision petition after an inordinate delay of
3487 days. So, there is no ground for condonation of inordinate
delay of 3487 days. So, revision petition filed by the petitioners be
dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the
respondents on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act.
The reasons given in the application under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act are reproduced as under:-
"The petitioners came to know that regarding
land in question, the National Highway Authority
[2023/RJJP/001205] (3 of 4) [CR-168/2022]
of India (NHAI) published a notification under
Section 3(A) of National Highway Authority, Act
1956 on 09.12.2010 (New Act is of 1988)
regarding land in question. In two local
newspapers a publication was also made on
18.01.2011 inviting objections. No one filed any
objection including the Respondent No.1 and
after conclusion of acquisition proceedings, the
competent authority and land acquisition officer,
Sikar passed an award on 20.02.2014. Along with
the award a list of the calculation of
compensation was also enclosed and at item
No.25 the said land is described in the name of
Municipal Council Sikar, Jayant Kumar son of Sita
Ram and total amount Rs.5,56,340/- for this 0.05
Hectare land was determined. The petitioners
also collected necessary information and came to
know that the amount determined by NHAI has
been received by respondent No.1 and after
receiving the same amount, the land in question
had vested in NHAI vide mutation dated
22.11.2016 and due entries has been made in
jamabandi also.
That the petitioners in such circumstances moved
an application under Section 47 read with 151
CPC on 17.03.2018 and narrated all aforesaid
facts and also submitted that the respondent
No.1 has got not locus standi to further prosecute
the Execution Petition and since the respondent
No.1 has received the compensation and decree
has been satisfied, the execution proceedings be
dropped. Since there is finding of the executing
court that nothing is brought on record regarding
challenge of order dated 21.01.2013, this has
necessitated the filing of revision petition. The
continuance of the execution proceedings by the
[2023/RJJP/001205] (4 of 4) [CR-168/2022]
learned Executing Court below shall amount to
abuse of process of law."
A perusal of the averments in the application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act it is clear that nothing has been
mentioned as to when the petitioners came to know that the
amount determined by NHAI has been received by respondent
No.1 and when due entries were made in jamabandi. Even after
filing the application under Section 47 read with 151 CPC on
17.03.2018, the petitioners did not file the revision petition for
four years and waited for outcome of the order dated 27.05.2022.
The averments made in the application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act are entirely vague.
It is an admitted position that the petitioners have not
shown any justified cause for filing the present revision petition
after an inordinate delay of 3487 day. So, I do not consider it a fit
case for condonation of the inordinate delay of 3487 days. So,
application filed by the petitioners for condonation of the delay is
devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed, which stands
dismissed accordingly.
Consequent upon the dismissal of the application under
under Section 5 of limitation Act, the revision petition also stands
dismissed.
Stay application also stands dismissed accordingly.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Gourav/57
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
