STATE OF U P Vs. MAHADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These 9 appeals are directed against common judgment, award and decree dated 27.9.1993 passed by 5th A.D.J. Bulandshar in 9 L.A. References being L.A. Reference no.66 to 84 all of 1993. All these appeals have been filed with exactly 500/- days delay. In each appeal time to file supplementary affidavit in respect of delay condonation application was granted and supplementary affidavits were filed on 15.11.1995. Through the impugned judgment compensation has been enhanced from about Rs.20,000/- per bigha to about Rs.70,000/- per bigha.

(2.) In the original affidavit filed along with delay condonation application it was stated that appellants i.e. State of U.P. through Collector Bulandshar, S.L.A.O. Bulandshar and Executive Engineer Madhya Ganga Nahar Khand - 19 Aligarh got the copy of the judgment on 6.11.1993 thereafter D.G.C. was required to give his opinion. The D.G.C. gave the opinion for filing appeal on 9.11.1993. The matter was referred to the acquiring body which sent its recommendation on 21.12.1993. Thereafter on 24.12.1993 matter was referred to the State for obtaining sanction to file appeal. The Government raised some queries through letter dated 9.2.1994 which was replied on 18.3.1994 (para 12 of the affidavit). Thereafter sanction was granted on 6.6.1994 and 27.6.1994. Thereafter it is mentioned in para 15 that huge Court fees amounting to Rs.30,000/- was required which was to be paid by the appellant no.3. Appellant nos. 1 and 2 wrote eleven letters from 9.2.1994 to 17.5.1995 in that regard (para 15 of the affidavit). Thereafter, in para 16 it is mentioned that inspite of so many letters money was not made available hence it was withdrawn from P.L.A. account on 26.5.1995.

(3.) In the supplementary affidavit filed on 15.11.1995 exactly same thing has been stated. In para 7 of the supplementary affidavit the 11 dates on which reminders were sent by appellant no.1 and 2 to appellant no.3 as mentioned in para 15 of the original affidavit have been again mentioned. Appellant no.3 even after 11 reminders from February 1994 till May 1995 (15 months) did not remit the necessary expenses. Ultimately expenses were withdrawn from P.L.A. Account. It shows utter negligence of the appellants.