LPA No. 251 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 251 of 2007 Date of Decision: 18.08.2008 Haryana Urban Development Authority and another ....Appellants versus Baljeet Singh ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR,CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the applicant-appellants Mr. R.K.Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for the respondent ***** T.S.Thakur, Chief Justice (Oral) There is a delay of 1473 days in the filing of this appeal. The appellants have filed Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1033 of 2007 for condonation thereof. A reading of the application shows that the prayer for condonation of delay is based on two precise grounds. It is, firstly, contended that the impugned judgment of learned Single Judge, was challenged in a review petition which was eventually dismissed. The second reason is that the appellants took some time to obtain sanction for filing of the appeal resulting in some delay in the presentation of the appeal. Both these contentions, in our opinion, are insufficient for condoning an inordinate delay of 1473 days in filing the appeal. The impugned order of learned Single Judge was delivered on 25.2.2003. The review petition, referred to in the application for condonation, was, however, presented on LPA No. 251 of 2007 [2] 9.3.2007, i.e. more than three years and eight months later. Not only that the review application was dismissed on 23.3.2007. Even if we exclude the period of 15 days taken by learned Single Judge in dismissing the said petition, the delay of 1458 days would still remain unexplained. The alternative ground urged in the application that the delay was on account of time taken for obtaining sanction for filing of the appeal, has also not appealed to us. No details about the steps taken by the appellants for processing the papers for filing the appeal have been set out in the application or the accompanying affidavit. The application is blissfully silent as to why the authorities took four years to file a review application in the first instance. Besides there is no explanation why the appellant took five months even after dismissal of the said application. It is true that Courts take a liberal view in the matter of condonation of limitation on account of the impersonal nature of the approach adopted by public functionaries, yet in every case in which a prayer for condonation is made, the appellants have to satisfy the Court that they did not sit over the matter for a period more than what was absolutely necessary for processing the papers and presenting the appeal. Far from giving any details as to the steps that have been taken by the appellants immediately after the pronouncement of the order by the learned Single Judge, the application is silent as to the reasons for delay except making a bald statement that the delay was on account of time taken in obtaining sanction. The authorities, from whom the sanction was required to be obtained at different stages and through whom the papers had to be processed for taking the sanction, have also not been indicated. LPA No. 251 of 2007 [3] In the circumstances, therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the appellants have not made out any case for condoning the delay in filing of this appeal. The bar of limitation apart, we are of the opinion that the appellants have no case even on merits. It is not in dispute that according to the policy framed by the appellant authority, no oustee/expropriated land owner was entitled to claim a plot of land in preference to other applicants seeking such an allotment. It is also not in dispute that the respondent- applicant had made an application well within the time fixed for doing so and was according to the policy as modified from time to time, entitled to such an allotment. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, argued that the policy envisaged one allotment in favour of all the co-sharers of a particular parcel of land acquired from them. He urged that since the land acquired from the respondent-owners is owned by the some other co- sharers also, any allotment had to be in favour of all the such co-sharers. That argument though attractive does not stand closer scrutiny. We say so because none of other co-sharers, who were, according to the appellants, jointly entitled to seek an allotment, had ever applied to the authorities for such an allotment. It is not the case of the appellant-authority that any other co-sharer even today is demanding any allotment on the basis of acquisition of the land, from the appellant or other co-sharers. In the absence of any claim for allotment received from any of the co-sharers within a reasonable time from the date, when such a claim legitimately arose, the co-sharers even if entitled to claim such an allotment must be presumed to have given up their right to the same. In the very nature of the scheme formulated by the appellant authority, the right to demand an allotment, must be LPA No. 251 of 2007 [4] conditioned by the fact that such a claim is made within a reasonable period. The absence of any such claim, totally disentitles the co-sharers from making the same at this late stage. Similarly, the demand made by the appellants that the respondent-landowner should obtain a ' No Objection Certificate' from other co-owners, appears to be unjustified. If a co-sharer has himself not applied for allotment and is therefore, disinterested, in getting the benefit of the policy, it would be too onerous a requirement to ask the appellant to produce a No Objection Certificate from him. Suffice it to say, that apart from the hurdle of limitation in the maintainability of this appeal, there is no room for interference even on merits. The appeal accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs. (T.S.THAKUR) CHIEF JUSTICE (SURYA KANT) 18.08. 2008 JUDGE 'ravinder'