Balbir Singh v. UOI & Ors

V.B. GUPTA, J. Bisht

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI CM No. 9215/2006 & L.A.App.No.441 of 2006 % Judgment reserved on: 28th April, 2009 Judgment delivered on:1st May, 2009 Shri Bhim Singh, S/o Shri Daulat (Since deceased) Through his legal heirs Shri Balbir Singh,s/o Sh.Bhim Singh R/o Village Rawata, Delhi. ….Appellant Through: Mr.I.S.Dahia, Adv. Versus Union of India, through Land Acquisition Collector (South-West), Office At Old Terminal, Tax Building, Kapashera, New Delhi. …Respondent Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Adv. Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes V.B.Gupta, J. This order shall dispose of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short as "Act") read with Section 151 CPC, dated 15th May, 2006 filed on behalf of the appellant for condonation of delay of 18 years 196 days in filing the appeal. 2. It is stated that Regular First Appeal filed by the appellant is pending disposal and this appeal is against the award/judgment of reference court dated 3rd August, 1987 and order dated 25th September, 1991, by which reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was disposed of. 3. Father of the appellant Sh.Bhim Singh died on 19th May, 1985 before the impugned award was passed. The appellant was not aware of the pendency of the reference. On coming to know about the said case, an application for substitution of his name as legal representative of Sh.Bhim Singh was filed and the same was allowed by Addl.District Judge on 25th September, 1991. After having received the compensation of his father, he assigned the file of the above case to Sh.Raj Pal Singh Yadav, Advocate for filing the appeal. 4. Now about 25 days ago, appellant met one Shri Ram Kishan of his village, who told him that in his case, the compensation has been enhanced by this Court. Thereafter, appellant remembered that he has also engaged the service of Sh.Raj Pal Singh Yadav, Advocate for filing the appeal in this Court about 15 years ago. The appellant attempted to contact Sh.Raj Pal Singh Yadav but his colleagues told that he has shifted to Rewari and on enquiry at Rewari he was also not found there. Thereafter, about 20 days ago the appellant contacted his present counsel and tried to find out the latest position of his case. On enquiry and inspection of the record, it was revealed that no appeal has been filed by Sh.Raj Pal Singh Yadav in respect of the appellant"s acquired land before this Court. On the advice of the present counsel, present appeal has been filed bonafidely before this Court. 5. The appellant is semi-illeterate and is not well conversant with the technicalities of law. 6. Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana v. Chander Mani AIR 1996 SC 1622 has condoned the delay of more than 20 years, observing that the procedural law should not come in the way of substantive justice. This Court has also condoned the delay in filing of appeal for a period of 17 years in RFA No.154/2001, Kanwal Singh v. Union of India and also in the case of Standard Pharma Ceutical Ltd. v. G.C.Jain 97 (2002) DLT 290 in which delay of 18 years was condoned. 7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, delay of 18 years 196 days in filing this appeal may be condoned. 8. The application has been opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. In its reply affidavit, the respondent has stated that the present application is an abuse of process of law and has been filed in order to prejudice the mind of this Court. No ground as required under the provision of Section 5 of the Act has been made out. The present appeal has been filed after so many years despite the fact that appellant had the knowledge of the impugned judgment and he did not take any steps to file the appeal before this Court. The only plea taken in the present application is that the appellant has as