Point of Law: Limitation - Condonation of delay - Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when statute so prescribe and Courts have no power to extend period of limitation on equitable grounds - Discretion exercised by High Court was, thus, neither proper nor judicious. Order condoning delay cannot be sustained.

JUDGMENT :

CONC Nos. 103/2018, 89/2018 & 99/2018.

1. These condonation delay applications have been filed by the applicants seeking condoning the delay of 441 days in CONC No. 103/2018, 363 days in CONC No. 89/2018, and 426 days in CONC No. 99/2018 days in filing the appeals against the common judgment and decree dated 4th July 2017 passed by the learned Principal District Judge Baramulla in three references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

2. The case in brief is that land measuring 4 kanal, 2 marlas and 6 sirsai was requisitioned by PW(R&B) Department for widening of Narbal-Tangmarg Road and accordingly a notification was issued by the Collector concerned vide notification dated 30th August 2005 in terms of Section 4 (1) of J&K Land Acquisition Act for inviting objections, if any, from the affected land owners as well as villagers. No objections were filed by the affected land owners and consequently PNC was held with land owners on 7lh October 2006. During negotiation, the rates as stated in the application were approved for land depending upon nature of the land. However, some of the land owners did not agree to the rates offered by PNC and filed a writ petition seeking acquisition in terms of Land Acquisition Act. Subsequently, the Collector issued notification dated 31st December 2009 whereby notice under Section 6 and 7 has been issued. Thereafter, notice under Section 9 and 9A were also issued vide notice dated 9th October 2009.

3. In response to the said notice, the interested persons including the petitioners participated in the proceedings and objections were filed by the owners. Subsequently, the Collector has passed an award on 24th March 2011 whereby the petitioners were held entitled for compensation amounting to Rs. 7,07,051/-. Thereafter, an application under Section 18 was made before the Collector, Land Acquisition NTR seeking an amount of Rs. 20,55,912/- as compensation for the structures, on the basis of estimate prepared by some private surveyor. The Collector, Land Acquisition accordingly made reference under Section 18 to the Principal District Judge Baramulla on 13th October 2011. After leading evidence and considering the objections filed by the parties, the Principal District Judge, Baramulla, by a common judgment dated 4th July 2017 decided three references under Section 18, which is questioned by the applicants-appellants herein. The appeal is beyond limitation prescribed, therefore, the applications for condonation of delay have been filed.

4. It is pertinent to mention here that Rule 3-A of Order XLI CPC, comprising of sub-rules (1), (2) and (3), was inserted to secure determination of question as to the limitation at the stage of admission of appeal. Sub-rule (3) has been inserted so that the Court shall not make an order of stay till Application for condonation of delay is decided. In this regard I am fortified by judgments rendered in the cases of S.M. Iqbal v. Firdous Ahmad Shah, SLJ 1995 299; and S.M.Chopra v. Hilda & anr, 2016 (2) CPR(NC) 345. It has been held that an appeal filed beyond limitation period must not only be accompanied by an application setting forth the facts on which appellant relies to satisfy the Court that he had ‘sufficient cause’ for not preferring the appeal within limitation period, but even no stay should be granted by the Appellate Court unless application for condonation of delay is allowed. Therefore, Rule 3-A envisages that when an appeal is presented after the expiry of the period of limitation specified therefore, it shall be accompanied by an application setting forth the facts on which the appellant relies to satisfy the Court, that he had sufficient-cause for not preferring the appeal within such period. It may be noted here that Order XLI Rule 3-A of the Code deals specifically with application for condonation of delay which no doubt can be allowed in the event sufficient cause is set forth but this exercise has to be done on the point of limitatio