UNION OF INDIA v. RAM PAL & Ors.

Through: Ms. Deepika, Advocate versus PEHLAD & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate for Respondent No.2/DDA + LA.APP. 217/2012 UNION OF INDIA Appellant Through: Ms. Deepika, Advocate versus SURAJ BHAN & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate for Respondent No.2/ DDA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER 27.08.2012 C.M.No. 14715/2012 (u/S. 151 CPC)inLA. App. No. 215/2012. C.M. No. 14718/2012 (u/S. 151 CPC) in LA. App. No. 216/2012. C.M. No. 14735/2012 (u/S. 151 CPC)inLA. App. No. 217/2012. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMULYA LA. App. No. 215/2012, 216/2012 & 217/25012 Page 1 i 7-. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the appeal is heard. C.Ms. stands disposed of C.M. No. 14716/2012 (Condonaton of delay), C.M.No. 14714/2012 (Stay) and LA. App. No. 215/2012. I C.M. No. 14719/2012 (Condonaton of delay), C.M.No. 147E7/2012 (Stay) and LA. App. No. 216/2012. I C.M. No. 14736/2012 (Condonaton of delay), C.M.No. 14734/2012 (Stay) and LA. App. No. 217/2012. I The commonality in the above captioned three appels is that they arise out of Award No.01/DCW/2006-07 relating to acquisition of land of Village Bakkarwala, in pursuance to Notification of 17th June, 2005 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 194. The compensation awarded vide impugned judgment is also the same, i.e., @ 20,35,255/- per acre while relying upon the order in LAC I No.7/09/07, titled Smt. Kailashwati vs. Union of India decided on 26th April, 2010. In the afore-noted background, the above captioned three petitions were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common order. The delay occasioned for filing the above captioned three appeals varies from 253 days to 716 days and the reason put-forth for the delay occasioned is identical, i.e., the copy of the impugned judgment was received by the respondent in April/May, 2012 and thereafter time was consumed in obtaining legal opinion and drafting of the appeal etc. At the hearing, it was urged by learned counsel for the applicant/appellant that the delay occasioned was bonafide nd not deliberate and that the compensation ought to have been assessed at the minimum price policy of the Government of 9th August, 21 001 as LA. App. No. 215/2012, 216/2012&217/25012 Page 2 has been done by the Land Acquisition Collector and not by relying upon the order passed in Kailashwati (supra). The parameters governing condonation of delay have been succinctly reiterated by the Apex Court in Ba/want Singh (Dead) vs. Jagdish Singh and Ors., (2010) 8 SCC 685, in the following words:-

#35. The expression "sufficient cause" implies the presence of legal and adequate reasons. The word "sufficient" means adequate enough, as much as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. It embraces no more than that which provides a plentitude which, when done, suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the light of existing circumstances and when viewed from the reasonable standard of practical and cautious men. The sufficient cause should be such as it would persuade the court, in exercise of its judicial discretion, to treat the delay as an excusable one. These provisions give the courts enough power and discretion to apply a law in a meaningful manner, while assuring that the purpose of enacting such a law does not stand frustrated." Conceding that in such like matters, pedantic approach is not to be adopted, but still, the applicants have to explain the delay ranging WJ from one year to two years in obtaining the copy of the impugned judgment. In the applications for condonation of delay, no such explanation is forthcoming. Lethargic attitude of the appellant in processing the file for obtaining legal opinion, etc. cannot be countenanced in view of the unexplained delay in obtaining the certified copy of the impugned judgment. Even on merits, appellant has no case as at the hearing, it was LA. App. No. 215/2012, 216/2012 & 217/25012 Page 3 asserted by the appellant’s counsel that the assessment of market value of the acquired land was made in Kailashwati (supra) on the basis of the minimum price policy of the Government while working out appreciation thereon for the period from the date of theolicy till the date of the acquisition in question and in Kailashwati (stpra), the compensation has been enhanced by a coordinate Bench of this Court alongwith the decision in batch of appeals in Jamna vs. Union of India & Ors., i.e. LA. App. No. 784/2005, rendered on 8th July, 2001, but Special Leave Petition against the decisions in Jathna and Kailashwati (supra) is purportedly being preferred by the appellant. •1 Finding that the delay ranging from eight months to to years, is not sufficiently explained and that the appellant has no base on I merits, I dismiss these three appeals being barred by time and on merit too, with no order as to costs. The applications for stay are disposed of as infructuous. AUGUST 27, 2012 J^^UXIL Judge LA. App. No. 215/2012, 216/2012 & 217/25012 Page 4