CM APPL. NO. 2805/11 and LA.APP.71/2011

Page 1 of 5

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

CM APPL. NO. 2805/11 AND LA.APP.71/2011

+

Date of Decision: 25^th July, 2011

#

UNION OF INDIA

...Petitioner

!

Through: Mr.Ramesh Ray, Advocate

Versus

$ PUSHPA RANI

....Respondent

Through: Mr. S.K Sethi,Advocate for DDA/R-2

CORAM:

*

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN

1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed

to see the judgment? (No)

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not? (No)

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? (No)

ORDER

P.K BHASIN,J

This application has been filed by the appellant under Order 41

rule 3A and Section 151 of the CPC and section 5 of Limitation Act

seeking condonation of delay of 367 days in filing the present appeal

against the judgment dated 13.05.2010 passed by the learned Additional

District Judge in LAC no. 641 A/08 whereby the amount of

compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector @ Rs

15,70,000/- per acre in respect of acquired land of the respondent was

enhanced to Rs.19,13,765/- per acre.

2011:DHC:3681

CM APPL. NO. 2805/11 and LA.APP.71/2011

Page 2 of 5

2.

The reasons for condonation of delay pleaded in this application

are reproduced below:

“ That the learned additional judge pronounced the impugned

appeal .”

3.

In support of this application Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned

counsel of the appellant-UOI pleaded reliance on some judgments of the

Supreme Court. Those judgments are reported as “2010 (6) SCC 786:

2011:DHC:3681

CM APPL. NO. 2805/11 and LA.APP.71/2011

Page 3 of 5

Improvement Trust, Ludhiana Versus Ujagar Singh & Ors , 2008

(14) SCC 589: Steel Authority of India Limited & Other Versus State

of West Bengal & Others, 2008 (14) SCC 582: State (NCT of Delhi))

Ahmed Jaan , 2005(3) 752 : State of Nagaland Versus Lipok Ao &

Others ,2005(3) SCC 761 Harishanker Rastogi Versus Sham

Manohar & Others, 2002(3)SCC 195 :Ram Nath Sao Versus

Gobardhan Sao & Others, 1988(2) SCC 142: G.Ramegowda Major

& Others Versus Land Acquisition Officer, 1998 (7) SCC123:

N.Balakrishnan Versus M. Krishnamurthy and 1988(2) SCC 142: G.

Ramegowda Major & Others Versus Land Acquisition Officer.”

Mr. Poddar cited some judgments of this court also wherein delay in

filing of appeals by the government in the land acquisition matter was

condoned. Those judgment are reported as “2010(2)AD (Delhi) 750:

Vijay Kumar Versus Union of India, 2010(168)DLT 731:UOI Versus

Mahender Singh, 2010(171)DLT622: Raghbir Singh Versus UOI,

2010(3) AD Delhi 771: Rajpal Singh Versus UOI, 2010(4) AD Delhi

556: Sita Rani Versus UOI, 2009 (165) DLT 290:Om Prakash, 2008

(149) 249: DDA Versus Vijay Pal Singh, 2007(141) DLT 484: Delhi

Development Authority Versus Saraswati Devi , 2007(10) AD (Delhi)

42: DDA Versus R.S Jindal , 2007 (143) DLT 426: Rati Ram Versus

UOI,

2005(117)DLT

1:

Yad

Ram

Versus

UOI,

120

2011:DHC:3681

CM APPL. NO. 2805/11 and LA.APP.71/2011

Page 4 of 5

(2005)DLT348(DB):Kanwar Singh Versus UOI,2002(8) AD(Delhi):

Shiv Dan Singh Versus UOI,1999(79)DLT 572: UOI Versus Darshan

Singh and 1990 (42) DLT 577 :UOI Versus Jyotsna Holdings Pvt.

Ltd.”

4. Before proceeding further, I may mention here that the land

owner did not enter appearance despite service of notice on him of this

application of the Government for condonation of delay in the filing of its

appeal.

5. I have gone through all the judgments cited by Mr. Sanjay

Poddar. The crux of all these judgments of the Supreme Court as well as

this Court is that the fact that it is the Government which is seeking

condonation of delay and not a private party is totally irrelevant factor

when the Courts are disposing of such like applications for condona