TARUN CHATTERJEE, K.G.BALAKRISHNAN
State Of H. P. – Appellant
Versus
SATYA DEVI – Respondent
ORDER
1. Leave granted
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The appellant State has filed an appeal before the High Court challenging the award passed by the Additional District Judge in a land acquisition reference case. There was a delay of 55 days in filing the appeal. The learned Single Judge before whom the matter came up for consideration declined to condone the delay in filing the appeal and dismissed it. Aggrieved by the same the present appeal is filed.
4. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the delay occurred due to administrative reasons and there were no wilful laches or negligence in the e matter on the part of the appellant. The counsel for the respondent, however, opposed the contention and submitted that the High Court had dismissed other appeals on the ground of delay and the State had not come up in appeal.
5. The delay was only 55 days and the officer of the State had filed an affidavit explaining the cause of delay and there was reasonable ground for filing the application for delay and the learned Single Judge should have considered the same and granted the application for condonation of delay.
6. We set aside the order passed by the learned Single
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.