RAGHBIR KAUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the Regular First Appeal against an award dated 6th November, 1985 made by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhatinda, while deciding reference of the appellant under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act'). The limitation for filing the appeal was to expire on 25 March, 1986 as the certified copy of the award was prepared and delivered to the counsel for the appellant on 3rd January, 1986. The appellant states that she is an illiterate parda Nashin lady living in a village. She depended on her son-in-law for pursuing her claim for compensation in respect of her land acquired. He came to her village in the first week of April. He brought the certified copy of the judgment to Chandigarh on 14th April, 1986, and engaged counsel for filing the appeal. It is explained that since obviously the limitation for filing the appeal had expired about 20 days earlier, the counsel considered it feasible first to verify the fact as to whether the Union of India respondent had filed any appeal against the award. It is undisputed that in case an appeal was filled by the Union of India after notice of the same to her, she could file cross-objections and claim enhancement of compensation within a period of 30 days. It is stated that the enquiry made by the counsel provided the information that the Union of India had preferred the appeals against the award of the learned Additional District Judge by which a number of reference-applications under section 18 of the Act were decided. These appeals had, however, not been yet listed for motion hearing and were lying pending with the Registry of this Court. It is further stated that the counsel awaited the admission of the appeal filed by the respondent and in this process he forgot to file not only the appeal but the cross-objections to the appeal filed by the respondent. The land-owners had filed their respective appeals against the award of the learned Additional District Judge. The appeals of the land-owners as also of the Union of India came up for final hearing before me and the same were decided vide my judgment dated 21st May, 1987.

(2.) It is further stated in the application that it was only when the counsel tried to verify from the file as to whether the appellant was required to make up any deficiency in Court fee in pursuance or my aforesaid judgment that he realised the omission on his part of having not filed the cross-objections. Explaining all these facts, the delay in filing the present appeal is sought to be condoned.

(3.) The application is duly supported not only by the affidavit of the appellant herself but also by an affidavit of Shri Rajinder Sharma, Clerk of Shri Baldev Kapoor Advocate, who is even now assisting Shri H.L. Sibal, Senior Advocate, and is representing the appellant.