STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. LT VIJAY SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Lt. Vijay Singh has been awarded compensation, under the Land Acquisition Act, for a certain building belonging to him. The award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector on 14-8-1972. Thereafter under Section 18 Lt. Vijay Singh made a reference to the District Judge for enhancement of compensation. The award was made by the learned District Judge on 18-12-1973. The amount of compensation has been enhanced. The State of Himachal Pradesh preferred an appeal to this Court under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. This appeal was filed on 9-10-1974, but on that date some defect was pointed out, and it was refiled on 11-11-1974. The period of 90 days is prescribed for filing appeal in the High Court. As the appeal was prima facie time barred, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was moved by the State of Himachal Pradesh on 11-10-1974. A reply to this petition has been filed by Lt. Vijay Singh. We are called upon to decide, as to whether, upon sufficient cause shown, the period of delay in filing appeal can be condoned.

(2.) In the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it is alleged on behalf of the State that after the award was given by the learned District Judge on 1812- 1973, the District Attorney Chamba applied on the next day, i.e. on 19-121973, to the Copying Agency of the District Judge at Dharamsala, for a copy of the judgment. According to State, this copy of the judgment has yet not been supplied. The District Attorney reminded the Superintendent of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Kangra Division (Dharamsala) on 16-7-1974, but no response was received. It is further averred that on 28-6-1974 the District Attorney received a typed copy of the judgment from the Land Acquisition Collector in connection with the execution application filed by Lt. Vijay Singh, Thereafter some official was appointed, and a fresh application for a copy was made on 14-8-1974 and a certified copy was received on 17-8-1974. According to State, the period between 19-12-1973 and 17-8-1974 should be credited end the appeal should be deemed filed within limitation. The alternative argument is that for the reasons stated sufficient cause is made out under Section 5 for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed period.

(3.) The reply of the respondent is that the District Attorney never applied for a copy of the judgment on 19-12-1973. In the alternative, it is pleaded that if at all he applied for a copy, he did it to the Copying Agency of the Additional District Judge, Kangra Division, at Dharamsala. There was no such copying agency in existence, and he should have rather applied to the Copying Agency of the District Judge, Kangra Division, at Dharamsala. In fact the respondent got a certified copy of the judgment and applied for execution of the award in the third week of June, 1974. In that execution, notices were served upon the District Attorney before 28th June, 1974 and a typed copy of the judgment was supplied to him by the Land Acquisition Collector, Chamba. At that stage the District Attorney issued the reminder dated 16-7-74 to the Superintendent, Copying Agency of the Additional District Judge, Kangra. The appellant thus knew about the execution proceeding in the last week of June, 1974 and still acted negligently in not obtaining the copy earlier. This culpable inaction on its part disentitles any benefit under Section 5 and the cause itself cannot be considered sufficient. A valuable right has been created in favour of the respondent and he should not be deprived of this valuable right because of any negligence or inaction committed by the appellant. In fact only one application was moved by the State for obtaining a copy and it was done on 14-8-1974 long after the limitation period had expired. As such no advantage can be derived by the appellant of Section 12 (2) of the Limitation Act. No sufficient cause is made out for not preferring the appeal within time. For these reasons, it is prayed that the appeal be held to be time barred.