MARKET COMMITTEE HODAL Vs. KRISHAN MURARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Having heard the learned counsel on both the sides we think that it is a case for our interference. Though there is an inordinate delay of 3240 days, merely 9 years, from 26/2/1985 to 30/5/1994, the date on which Special Leave Petition was filed, there is proper explanation given by the appellants in this case for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. It was not in dispute that the matter was sent to the central Agency and since the matter is of the State of Haryana, the central Agency did not pursue the matter. When it was discovered that the central Agency had not taken the steps in filing the appeal, the SLP came to be filed on 30/5/1994. The explanation offered is just and rational and can be acceptable. It is accordingly accepted. Delay is accordingly condoned.

(3.) It is contended by Shri Datta, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents that on account of the delay the appellants have constructed the oil mill expending considerable money. Though they have received the compensation under protest the respondents are prepared to return the compensation with suitable interest as may be determined by the court and that, therefore, it may not be a case warranting interference. We find that there is no justification for accepting the contention.