Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. & Others vs Dev Raj Singh & Others on 24 April, 2014
Author: Krishna Murari
Bench: Krishna Murari, Harsh Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR "Reserved" Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 610 of 2005 Appellant :- State Of U.P. & Others Respondent :- Dev Raj Singh & Others Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J Hon'ble Harsh Kumar, J
This is a belated appeal directed against the judgment and award dated 17.04.1999 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Bijnor arising out of Land Acquisition Reference No. 121 of 1996, Dev Raj Singh Vs. State of U. P.. Vide judgment and award impugned in this appeal, Additional District Judge, Bijnor has decided nine other references. Stamp Reporter has reported delay and laches of six years and seven days in filing the appeal.
We have heard learned Standing Counsel on the delay condonation application.
In the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application, it has been stated that after receiving the certified copy of the judgment, record was sent to the District Government Counsel (Civil) on 26.05.1999 seeking legal opinion and sanction was also sought from the acquiring body to file appeal vide letter dated 29.05.1999. It is further stated that the Executive Engineer, Poorvi Ganga Nahar Nirman Khand-5, Najibabad, Bijnor, acquiring body, granted his consent for filing appeal and also recommended to the District Magistrate, Bijnor to obtain sanction from the State Government. Vide letter dated 09.09.1999 State Government granted permission to file appeal on 19.11.1999 which was received in the office of the District Magistrate on 25.11.1999. District Magistrate immediately thereafter vide his letter dated 01.12.1999 requested the acquiring body i. e. Poorvi Ganga Nahar Nirman Khand-5, Najibabad, Bijnor to sanction requisite court fees and misc. expenses for filing appeal. The Cheque of the amount required for filing the appeal is stated to have been issued on 24.11.2001.
Affidavit does not record any justifiable reason for spending two years time for sanctioning the requisite fund for filing appeal. Further, there is no explanation as to why the appeal was not filed immediately after the sanction was received. It is apparent that authorities unnecessarily waited for sanction of the court fees even though the appeal could have been filed with deficient court fees along with an application under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking enlargement of time for making good the deficiency.
Learned Standing Counsel pointed out that Accounts Clerk without any reason withheld the cheque no. 083/01095 dated 24.11.2001 regarding court fee and did not forward the same which, ultimately, expired forcing the authorities to grant the amount for the purposes of filing the appeal by means of a Bank Draft on 07.02.2005. Again, there is no explanation submitted for delay of five years in issuing the Bank Draft for providing expenses to file appeal even though inaction of the employee was detected and he was placed under suspension. Reference in this connection may be made to Annexure '7' of the affidavit, which is a letter dated 28.03.2003 which records that Cheque has been discovered from the Almirah of Accounts Clerk, Sri Magan Lal Tewari and he has been placed under suspension by the District Magistrate and the two cheques issued for the court fees and expenses of the appeal are being sent for renewal. There is altogether no explanation for this period. It is further stated in the affidavit that the appeal was got prepared between 13.04.2004 to 25.04.2005. It may be relevant to quote the averments made in paragraph 13 of the affidavit in this regard.
"13. That thereafter on 13.04.2004, Shri V. K. Rohilla, Junior Engineer and Shri Sheroz Messy, Clerk were sent to Allahabad and they remained at Allahabad from 13.04.2004 to 25.04.2004 and got file appeals in the following ten cases.
1.Land Acquisition Case no. 164 of 1996, Daya Ram Versus State
2.Land Acquisition Case no. 296 of 1997, Shabbir Versus State
3.Land Acquisition Case no. 222 of 1996, Lakhan Singh Versus State
4.Land Acquisition Case no. 210 of 1996, Chet Ram Versus State
5.Land Acquisition Case no. 64 of 1996, Omkar Versus State
6.Land Acquisition Case no. 271 of 1996, Mukandi Versus State
7.Land Acquisition Case no. 298 of 1997, Ram Singh Versus State
8.Land Acquisition Case no. 119 of 1996, Roop Ram Versus State
9.Land Acquisition Case no. 122 of 1996, Smt. Parmeshwari Versus State.
10.Land Acquisition Case no. 295 of 1997, Rampal Versus State."
There is no explanation as to why when the appeal was got prepared between 13.04.2004 to 25.04.2004 even then it could not be filed immediately and was presented for reporting after more than one year on 17.08.2005 and thereafter filed on 20.08.2005. The aforesaid fact clearly demonstrates an absolute slackness and inaction on the part of the appellant in pursuing the matter. It is also to be taken note of First Appeal Defective No. 591 of 2005, First Appeal Defective No. 589 of 2005, First Appeal Defective No. 590 of 2005 and First Appeal Defective No. 583 of 2005 filed challenging the same reference order which is under challenge in this appeal presented with delay of more than six years, as is the case in the present appeal, have been dismissed by the learned single Judge on 26.09.2013 and other similar First Appeal Defective No. 588 of 2005 and First Appeal Defective No. 592 of 2005 have also been dismissed by another learned single Judge vide order dated 19.11.2013 and 17.12.2013 respectively.
In the facts and circumstances, we also do not find the explanation tendered by the appellant for inordinate delay of more than six years in filing the appeal sufficient to condone the delay and to take a different view taken by the learned single Judge. The delay in filing the appeal has not been sufficiently explained. Delay condonation application stands rejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed as barred by limitation.
Date : April 24 , 2014 (Krishna Murari, J)
Dcs.
(Harsh Kumar, J.)