STATE OF U.P. Vs. KHALIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 is a classic instance of inert attitude of the State and its machinery exposing itself about its inefficient working by process of red tapism having no regard to the rights of the citizens as well as to the mandate of law providing limitation for filing the appeal. It would be enough to mention that the State of Uttar Pradesh, which is a biggest litigant, is responsible for the laws delay, which has resulted in not only unnecessary load on the courts, but also criticism of judicial system and sufferance to the litigant public. The appeal has been filed against the court award dated 19.7.1989 given in Land Acquisition Reference No. 163 of 1985 alongwith the application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as the Act) for condonation of delay accompanied by an affidavit. The memorandum of appeal shows that it is reported by the Stamp Reporter of the Court as beyond time by 1620 days.

(2.) THE limitation for appeal as provided in the Act is 90 days. The question for consideration in the present appeal is whether it is a fit case for entertaining the appeal and for issuing notices to the other side on the application for condonation of delay.

(3.) IT may be noticed that the appellant while explaining the delay by means of an affidavit has not stated as to when the certified copy of the award was applied for, but has given a vague statement that the application was made in August, 1989. The award is dated 19.7.1989. It is not disclosed as to when the copy was applied for and how the delay in applying the copy occurred. It has further not been stated when the Distt. Government Counsel obtained the certified copy of the judgment. It may be mentioned that in the affidavit in one paragraph it is stated the copy of the judgment and decree was applied for and in other paragraph it is stated that the copy of the order was obtained by the Government Counsel. It was award and not the judgment or order. However, it has not been stated as to whether the certified copy, as alleged, was obtained by the Distt. Govt. Counsel or some uncertified copy of the order was obtained. The order was sent to the Land Acquisition Officer by the Government Counsel on 13.9.1989 and the Land Acquisition Officer wrote to the Government Counsel on 20.9.89 and thereafter, the Distt. Government counsel sent his opinion vide letter dated 8.11.90. Even upto this point of time i.e. 8.11.1990 the limitation provided for appeal had already expired. The intervening delay has not been explained and it has not even explained as to why the Govt. counsel gave advice on the asking of Land Acquisition Officer.