LA. APP No.305/2008 Page 1 of 5 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA. APP. 305/2008 & CM 1765/2008 (delay) Reserved on : 21st April, 2008 Date of Decision :26th May,2008 KRISHAN KUMAR …… Appellant Through: Mr.Abhay Kushwaha, Mr.Abhigya Kushwaha and Mr.Dhruv Kushwaha, Advocates. Versus UNION OF INDIA …… Respondent. Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.SHALI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? J U D G M E N T % V.K.SHALI, J 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 challenging the judgment dated 5th December, 1994 passed by the Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi in LAC Case No.243/1993 with regard to the disbursement of the compensation as per the revenue record of Village Ghoga on the ground LA. APP No.305/2008 Page 2 of 5 that the said judgment has erroneously recorded the shares of the appellant. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant is claiming that he is the co-owner of Khasra No.92 measuring 10 Biswas, Khasra No.42 measuring 17 biswas, Khasra No.47 measuring 18 biswas and Khasra No.91 measuring 2 biswas. It is alleged by the appellant that so far as he and his three brothers namely Ram Kumar, Jai Narain and Raghunath are concerned, they all had 1/4th shares each in of these parcels of land. However, on account of some erroneous presumption while granting the benefit of enhanced compensation to the appellants, their shares have been recorded as 1/8th instead of 1/4th in respect of Khasra Nos.42,46 and 47 and 1/6th share in respect of Khasra nos.90 and 91. It is alleged by the appellant that so far as the disbursement of compensation awarded by the LAC is concerned, the same was done on the basis of revenue record and accordingly 1/4th share of compensation was given to the appellant. It may be pertinent here to mention that in respect of land in question, the LAC had awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand) per bigha while the reference Court had increased the compensation by Rs.19,500/- (nineteen thousand five hundred) thereby making it total of Rs.24,500/- (twenty four thousand five hundred). 3. The appellant along with the appeal has filed the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the judgment dated 5th December, 1994. The reason which has been given by the LA. APP No.305/2008 Page 3 of 5 appellant in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay is that after passing of judgment on 5th December, 1994, the appellant filed an application for review in the month of March, 1994 for rectification of his share recorded in the judgment by the learned Additional District Judge. The appellant contends that it took more than seven years to get the same decided. The said application for review was dismissed on 13th November, 2002. No reasons are given in the application by the appellant as to why the disposal of the review application took seven years. No certified copies/or the photocopies of the order sheet have been placed on record to show that the inordinate delay in dismissal of the application was not attributable to the petitioner. On the contrary, the non-filing of these order sheets make one draw an inference that the petitioner himself was responsible for the delay or that he was grossly negligent in prosecuting his matter. It was the duty of the appellant to ensure that the review application is decided expeditiously. By simply filing the review application and thereafter sleeping over it, cannot permit appellant to take the benefit of the same to sustain his present appeal. 4. After the dismissal of the review application on 13.11.2002, the appellant filed a Second Review application on 13th March, 2003 which is stated to have been dismissed on 5th December, 2006. Thereafter, an appeal under Section 54 of the LAC Act 1894 was filed, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 27th February, 2007. It is in this background that the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. LA. APP No.305/2008 Page 4 of 5 5. At the outset, it is stated that before entertaining the present appeal under Section 54 so far as the challenge to the judgment dated 5th December, 1994 is concerned, the appellant had to satisfy the Court that he was prevented by 'sufficient cause' from filing the appeal on the last day of the limitation and thereafter. Although the earlier ruling of explaining of each day's delay as propounded in Ram Lal Reva Coal Fields case in AIR 1962 SC 361 has gone sea change and the latest trend of the Supreme Court is that while condoning the delay the Court must take more practical and pragmatic approach and not pedantic view (see Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, Kerala Vs. K.V.Ayisumma (1996) 10 SCC 634) or that while condoning the delay, Courts must adopt liberal approach are of no help to the petitioner. What is important to consider but also the bonafide of the party. Reliance in this regard is placed on Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another Vs. Mst. Katiji and another AIR 1987 SC 1353. 6. No credible averment has been made much prima facie proof has been brought by the learned counsel for the appellant in support of his application seeking condonation of delay of almost 14 years. Thus there is no 'cause' much less 'sufficient cause' to condone the delay of 14 years in entertaining the present appeal. On the contrary the petitioner has been grossly negligent, indolent and, therefore, the delay can not be condoned. 7. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant, challenging the impugned order dated 5th December, 1994 is hopelessly barred by time. LA. APP No.305/2008 Page 5 of 5 The appeal and the application for condonation of delay are dismissed. No order as to costs. V.K.SHALI, J MUKUL MUDGAL,J May 26, 2008 RN