Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral)

C.M. No.4848/2013 (condonation of delay) in L.A. Appeal No.66/2013

1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 2328 days in filing of this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the judgment of the reference court dated 28.9.2005 passed under Section 18 of the Act by which the reference court enhanced the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Collector.

2. The only facts which are pleaded for seeking condonation of delay are stated in para 3 of the application and which reads as under :-

“3. That there is 2328 days delay for filing the present appeal due to this reason that the appellant has been living in village Mundka and could not contacted to his counsel as the appellants were not aware about the right to file the appeal. But when other villagers informed them about the filing of appeal against the impugned order only then appellant contacted to his counsel then the present appeal has been drafted and filed in the hon’ble court but in the mean time limitation period has already been passed. The applicant could not filed the present appeal in time due to the above said reason which is not intentional.”

3. Two grounds are therefore urged seeking condonation of delay (i) of not being able to contact the counsel and (ii) not being aware of right to file the appeal.

4 (i) So far as not being aware of the right to file an appeal all that needs to be stated is that ignorantia juris non excusat i.e ignorance of law is not an excuse. In any case, I fail to believe that in today’s date and age people are not aware of their legal rights of being entitled to file appeals against the judgments of the courts below.

(ii) So far as the fact that it is written that the appellant could not contact his counsel, the plea is a totally false plea because it is not stated as to who was the counsel who was sought to be contacted, and that why he could not be contacted, and in any case 2328 days delay is hardly a delay which can be condoned on such facts.

5. The issue with respect to condonation of delay in land acquisition matters is no longer res integra and there are three main judgments of the Supreme Court on this aspect. The earliest of the judgment is in the case of Mewa Ram (deceased) by his LRs and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana through The Land Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon (1986) 4 SCC 151. The second case is the recent judgment in the case of Basawaraj and Ors. Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer AIR 2014 SC 746. Third judgment is the judgment in the case of Brijesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2014) 4 SCALE 50. In all the aforesaid cases, Supreme Court has reiterated the fact that once there is inaction and/or want of bonafide, and/or negligence, then, delay cannot be condoned.

6. In the case of Mewa Ram (supra), Supreme Court has observed 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 in compensation. In the case of Basawaraj (supra), Supreme Court has observed that equity is not a ground to extend the limitation period by condonation of delay if there is no sufficient cause. It is further observed by the Supreme Court that an unlimited limitation would lead to a sense of insecurity and uncertainty and which deprives finality to a judgment by which equity and justice have come into play. The finality of a judgment cannot be disturbed by a party’s own inaction or laches. The relevant paras of the judgment in the case of Basawaraj (supra) are paras 12, 13 and 15 and the same read as under :-

“12. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. "A result flowing from a statutory