UOI Vs. MOTI LAL JAIN & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No. 13818/2009 (under Order 41 R 3A & Section 151 CPC r/w Section 5 of Limitation Act).

(2.) THERE is delay of nearly six years i.e. 2180 days in filing the accompanying appeal against impugned order in which compensation assessed is @ 2000 per sq. yard in respect of acquired land of village Bahapur in Delhi vide Notification of 30th June, 1978 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Aforesaid impugned order relies upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in, RFA No. 65/1981 Bhola Nath & Others Vs. Union of India rendered on 21st August, 1998, to grant the compensation, of which appellant is aggrieved. Impugned order of 3rd December, 2001 stood modified by the order of 25th February, 2003 and the period of limitation is computed from the year 2003 whereas respondent's counsel asserts that on computation of the period of limitation from the year 2001, the period of delay would be of more than seven years.

(3.) TO the contrary is the assertion of learned counsel for the first respondent, of the delay occasioned being inexplicable as it is pointed out that the appellant was represented in the year 2006 before the Executing Court and so the delay from the year 2006 till the year 2009 remains unexplained and thus, inordinate delay does not deserve to be condoned in view of the decision in Union of India Vs. Mangat : 1989 APEXSOFT (DELHI) 9 = 37 (1989) DLT 123 holding that cryptic and routine explanation do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Reliance is also placed upon Apex Court decision in Pundlik Jalam Patil (Dead) By legal heirs. Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and Another, 2008 XI AD (S.C.) 377 = (2008) 17 SCC 448 wherein tendency to drag land losers to courts of law, years after termination legal proceedings was deprecated as it serves no public interest.