Point of Law: Though the Courts are required to weigh scale of balance of justice in respect of both the parties, the said principle cannot be given a total good-bye in the name of liberal approach.

JUDGMENT :

Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

Both the writ appeals would arise out of the common order, dated 15.04.2014 passed in W.P.Nos.24213 of 2008 and 5767 of 2009. While W.A.No.1974 of 2017 is barred by 1312 days, the other writ appeal i.e. W.A.No.43 of 2018 is barred by 1330 days. The petitioners/appellants have filed I.A.No.1 of 2017 and I.A.No.1 of 2018 in the above appeals respectively, seeking condonation of delay of the above mentioned period.

2. These two intra-Court appeals i.e. W.A.No.1974 of 2017 and W.A.No.43 of 2018 were filed against the common order, dated 15.04.2014 passed in W.P.No.5767 of 2009 and W.P.No.24123 of 2008 respectively. W.P.No.5767 of 2009 and W.P.No.24213 of 2008 are filed seeking Writ of Certiorari to call for records pertaining to Award Nos.2 of 2007-2008 and 1 of 2007-2008, dated 02.11.2007 respectively and to set aside the same and further to direct the respondents to notify the structures of the petitioners for acquisition under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The learned Single Judge, dismissed the writ petitions after considering the averments in writ affidavit, counter and rejoinder, observing that the petitioners in both the writ petitions did not dispute with regard to the factum of executing Form-III agreements and Form-IV affidavits and expressed their consent for passing the award agreeing for the amounts indicated by the respondents. Aggrieved by the said orders the above writ appeals were filed with inordinate delay as indicated supra.

3. The appellants offered explanation in seeking to condone delay contained in paragraphs Nos.6 and 7 of the affidavit, which are reproduced hereunder:

“I submit that the Writ Petition was dismissed on 15.04.2014. The present Writ Petition was filed by me along with 160 other petitioners. All the petitioners after coming out from the village they were scattered and settled in different villages to eke out their livelihood. Therefore, it is very difficult to communicate the above said dismissal order to all the writ petitioners. All the petitioners are agricultural labours and coolies and they are searching for their livelihood by doing coolie work day to day basis, and they are illiterates and settled in the rural villages.

I submit that all the petitioners are unable to know the status of the Writ Petition all these days and recently now we came to know through some of our claimants in the writ petition and contacted the advocate and requested him to file the Writ Appeal against the dismissal order. Therefore, the delay of 1312 days occurred in filing of the present Writ Appeal against the dismissal order dated 15.04.2014 in W.P.No.5767 of this Hon’ble Court. Therefore, the above delay is neither intentional nor wanton but only due to the reason stated above. If the delay is not condoned the petitioners will be put to suffer irreparable loss and injury.”

4. While considering the application for condonation of delay, the Court has to see whether the delay is inordinate or delay is few days and the reasons assigned are valid and cogent. The party seeking condonation of delay needs to explain the delay properly, the grounds which are reasonable and plausible.

5. In Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh and Ors., (2010) 6 SCC 786 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that while considering the application for condonation of delay, no straitjacket formula is prescribed to come to the conclusion if sufficient and good grounds have been made out or not. It has been further stated therein that each case has to be weighed from its facts and the circumstances in which the party acts and behaves.

6. In Balwant Singh (dead) v. Jagdish Singh and Ors., (2010) 8 SCC 685 after referring to earlier case law, the Hon’ble Apex Court held at paragraphs 24 and 25 as under;

“We may state that even if the term “sufficient cause” has to receive liberal construction, it must squarely fall within the concept of reasonable time and proper conduct of the party concerned. The