UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAMRATAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed under S. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, against the Award dated 25.6.1999 passed by Second Addl. District Judge, Mhow, Distt. Indore. As per office note this appeal is barred by 1265 days. The appellant has separately filed application for condonation of delay registered as M (C) P No. 870 of 03. After going through the said application it was pointed out to learned counsel that the inordinate delay has not been explained properly and the application filed for condonation of delay is not only scanty but contains only bald averments. Learned counsel realising the difficulty has prayed for time to file a detailed affidavit showing as to under what circumstances and at whose hands such a long delay has been caused.

(2.) DESPITE grant of several opportunities the appellant has not filed any fresh affidavit showing the aforesaid delay. Thus, we considered the application which is on record. In the said application it has been mentioned that sanction for filing of the said appeal was received on 31.1.2003, but the appeal was filed on 12.3.2003. From the averments it is clear that a delay of more than a month was caused after obtaining the sanction and before the presentation of the appeal in this Court. This delay has neither been explained nor any averment has been made in this regard. It is further revealed from the said application that the impugned order was passed on 25.6.1999, but the application for obtaining certified copy of the impugned award made only on 10.7.2002. Thus, the application for obtaining the certified copy was made after more than 3 years. This delay in obtaining the certified copy has also not been explained. In view of the aforesaid dates mentioned herein, it is manifest that the appellant has been negligent, callous and indifferent to file the appeal against the impugned award. We, therefore, find that appellant has miserably failed to satisfy for not being able to file the appeal within the prescribed period of time. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the application for condonation of delay is hereby rejected. As a necessary consequence thereof, the appeal is also dismissed.