Raj Kumar & Ors v. Union of India & Anr

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J JULY 11, 2018 'pp'..

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 11th July, 2018 + LA.APP. 198/2016 & CM No.26649/2016 (for condonation of 3109 days delay in filing the appeal). RAJ KUMAR & ORS ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Deepak Khosla, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain and Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Adv. for R-1. Ms. Mrinalini Sen Gupta and Ms. Niharika Jauhari, Advs. for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 impugns the judgment [dated 24th August, 2007 in LAC No.127/1/2006 (Old No.119/2003) of the Court of the Additional District Judge (LAC), Delhi] on a Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, enhancing the compensation for the acquired land of the appellants. The appellants seek further enhancement. 2. This appeal, accompanied with CM No.26649/2016 for condonation of 3109 days delay in filing thereof, came up before this Court first on 27th July, 2016 when notice of the appeal as well as the application for condonation of delay was issued. The respondent no.1 Union of India (UOI) has not filed any reply. Reply to the application for condonation of delay has however been filed by the respondent no.2 Delhi Development Authority (DDA). 3. The counsels have been heard. 4. The appellants seeks condonation of delay of 3109 days pleading (i) that the appellants are totally illiterate and are not conversant with the intricacies of law and specifically the law of limitation; (ii) the appellants were always under bona fide belief that they can prefer appeal after receipt of enhanced compensation; (iii) that even the counsel for the appellants did not advise the appellants to file further appeal before the High Court under the provisions of Section 54 of the Act; (iv) that the appellants, in the last week of May, 2016 met other villagers whose land was also acquired by the same award and during the general discussion it came to the knowledge of the appellants that the amount has been further enhanced by the Supreme Court; (v) thereafter the appellants contacted the present counsel who advised them to file appeal; and, (vi) after applying for and obtaining certified copy, this appeal was filed. 5. The counsel for the appellants has fairly stated that he is conscious of the dicta of the Full Bench of this Court in Tej Pratap Singh Vs. Union of India 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8368 on a reference made by the same Hon'ble Judge who on the first date when this appeal came up before this Court issued notice. As per the said dicta, it cannot be said that in all matters for enhancement of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, the delay has to be condoned or a lenient view has to be taken. It was held that condonation of delay is not a vested right or granted on asking in all appeals seeing enhancement of compensation for acquisition of land; the social and economic condition of the appellant, including his educational background and other limitations are the most important and determinative factors to be taken into consideration so as to not deny justice and to correct disparity; at the same time, indulgence need not be bestowed to the negligent and fence sitters, who had economic resources and were well versed and could have enforced right to appeal but for multifarious reasons were satisfied and did not pursue and enforce their right. 6. The respondent no.2 DDA, in its reply, has referred to (i) Mewa Ram Vs. State of Haryana 1986 (4) SCC 151 holding that merely because enhanced compensation has been granted in other cases, the same would not be a ground for filing of the appeal with condonation of delay to seek enhancement of compensation; (ii) Basawaraj Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer AIR 2014 SC 746, to contend that law of limitation has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes, even if it may harshly affect a particular party; and, (iii) Brijesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (2014) 4