MAN CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delhi Administration required vast areas of land for a public purpose, namely, for planned development of Delhi and issued the preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on November 13, 1959. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act with respect to 569 Bighas and 19 biswas of land in Kotla Mahigram Estate was issued on December 28, 1961. The Land Acquisition Collector made his award No. 1374 and offered compensation for the acquired land by assessing its value blockwise. He assessed the value for block 'A' at the rate of Rs.2,500.00 per bigha, for block 'B' at the rate of Rs.l,600.00 per bigha, for block 'C' at the rate ofRs.l,000.00 per bigha and for block 'D' at the rate of Rs. 800.00 per bigha. The appellants/their predecessors in-interest are aggrieved of the compensation tendered by the Collector and made a reference petition under Section 18 of the Act for determination of the compensation by the Court. The reference petition was entrusted to the Court of Shri F.S. Gill, the then Addl. District Judge, Delhi. He determined the compensation for the acquired land and enhanced it for block 'A' at the rate of Rs. 3,500.00 per bigha, for block 'B' at the rate of Rs. 2,240.00 per bigha, for block 'C' at the rate of Rs. 1,400.00 per bigha and for block 'D' at the rate of Rs. 1,120.00 per bigha, in his judgment and decree dated November 27, 1970.

(2.) The appellants have filed on April 18, 1987 an appeal against the said judgment and decree dated November 27, 1970 under Section 54 of the Act and have prayed in the present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for condonation of delay of about seventeen years in filing the appeal.

(3.) The Limitation Act, 1963 is a consolidating and amending statute relating to the limitation of suits, appeals and certain specified type of applications to the Court and it is a piece of adjective and procedural law. Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides for the extension of prescribed period of limitation and for admission of the appeal after the prescribed period if the appellant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within such period. The rules of limitation are rules of procedure and the period of limitation is prescribed with a view to force the aggrieved parties to commence their suits or file their appeals within the prescribed period. The effect of the law of limitation is to extinguish, after the prescribed period, the legal remedy and in some cases, also a legal right. Where the time prescribed has once expired, a very valuable right accrues to the successful party and such right ought not to be lightly disturbed. The law ' of limitation and prescription may appear to operate harshly and sometimes unjustly, but where such law has been adopted by the State for reasons of policy which justify the rule, it has to be applied with stringency.