KARTAR SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE), PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The acquisition was questioned in a number of writ petitions, a reference to which was made by the learned Single Judge, in the judgment dated April 26, 1993, rendered in Civil Writ Petition No. 1358 of 1984. The appellant has accepted the quashing of the acquisition in Civil Writ Petition No. 1358 of 1984. There was neither any challenge before the Supreme Court nor this Court by way of appeal. However, the appellant has come up in appeal with respect to a part of the acquisition by way of this Letters Patent Appeal after the expiry of 365 days. The only averment made for condonation of delay is hereby reproduced in verbatim:-

(2.) Except the sentence reproduced above, there is not an iota of reason or fact explaining the delay of almost one year. There is no gainsaying that the State cannot be placed, in any manner, above an ordinary litigant so far as the provisions of the Limitation Act are concerned. Reference in this behalf my be made to the decision in Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijaywada v. T. Laxminarayana, A.I.R. 1975 Andhra Pradesh 109.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent, while opposing the condonation of delay, referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Union of India and Ors. v. Tata Vodogawa Limited and Anr., J.T. 1988(4) S.C. 472, wherein the Supreme Court after taking into consideration the averment made in the application for condonation of delay to the effect that the delay of 51 days was on account of "interdepartmental correspondence and processing of the matter to enable the department to file the instant petition" and referring to various dates observed: