The main legal point established in the judgment is that the delay in filing the appeal was unexplained and the subsequent delay condonation application did not provide sufficient cause for the delay. Additionally, the court clarified that the compensation for the acquired land was rightly determined as per the old provisions and the Act of 2013 would not apply in this case.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Shri R.D. Rastogi, learned Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr. Bhanu Pratap Bohra for the appellants and Shri Vikas Balia, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Swaroop Singh Sisodia for the respondents.

2. The Union of India through Ministry of Road, Transport and Highway, the National Highway Authority of India, the Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition), Additional District Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Rajsamand and the Zonal Officer and Project Director, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Ajmer Road, Jaipur have together preferred this intra-court appeal challenging two orders passed by the writ court.

3. The first is dated 13.12.2018, by which S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17917/2018 of the respondents Mahaveer & Ors. has been allowed along with connected petitions and the appellants have been directed to get the amount of compensation redetermined by the competent authority for their acquired land in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2013’). The second order of the writ court is dated 28.07.2022, by which the application filed by the appellants for recall of the order dated 13.12.2018 has been dismissed.

4. The office has reported that the appeal is beyond time by 1363 days and in reporting that the office has calculated the limitation from the date of first order i.e. 13.12.2018 and after excluding the period of 60 days of limitation provided for filing the appeal.

5. Shri R.D. Rastogi, learned ASG has disputed the correctness of the limitation calculated by the office but accepts that in any case, the appeal is barred by time even if the limitation is counted either from the second order dated 28.07.2022 or the first one dated 13.12.2018 as the appeal was preferred on 05.11.2022.

6. It is important to note that in the present appeal, two orders passed by the writ courts have been challenged. The first is dated 13.12.2018 and the second is dated 28.07.2022. In respect to the first order, the appeal is certainly beyond time as reported by the office. In respect of the second order also, the appeal is beyond time, may be only by 40 days as submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General himself.

7. Shri R.D. Rastogi, learned Additional Solicitor General, on the strength of various Supreme Court decisions, argued that a liberal approach ought to be taken while considering the delay condonation application; it is not necessary that the appellants should explain each day’s delay; the Court should always lean towards substantial justice rather than dismissing the cause on technicality such as limitation; and that wherever the matter is strong on merits, a more liberal approach should be taken in condoning the delay, more particularly when the delay has not been caused wilfully or deliberately.

8. Shri Rastogi further submitted that in the case at hand though the first judgment was delivered on 13.12.2018, it had not attained finality as an application for recall of the same was filed which came to be dismissed only vide order dated 28.07.2022. Therefore, the period during which the recall application remained pending has to be excluded.

9. On the other hand, Shri Vikas Balia, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that liberal approach in such matters cannot be extended to cases where no explanation is put-forth for the delay in filing the appeal or where there is no cause much less sufficient cause for the delay. He further submitted that where substantial right had accrued in favour of any party with the passage of time or with expiry of the period of limitation, the said right should not be disturbed lightly by the Court.

10. It is not disputed that the writ petition filed by the respondents was allo