STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SHRI HEMA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCORDING to the office report the instant Misc. Appeal was presented u/s. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act which was found to be 184 days beyond limitation. The appellant State Government moved an application u/s. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act supported with an affidavit for condonation of delay. Upon the aforesaid application notice was issued to the sole respondent. After service of notice the respondent has filed an objection supported with an affidavit opposing condonation of delay.

(2.) I have heard Shri M. R. Singhvi learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and Shri S. N. Sharma learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. I have critically examined the application moved u/s. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act moved by the State Government for condonation of delay and objection filed by the respondent opposing condonation of inordinance delay of 184 days.

(3.) ACCORDING to the averments made in para 1 of the application u/s. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act the State Government has taken decision to file an appeal on 10. 11. 94 but the present appeal was presented on 2. 1. 1995 i. e. on the first reopening day of this Court after winter vacation. This period comes to 52 days for which it is alleged that the record of the case was collected and relevant materials were further collected from the office of Land Acquisition Officer and thereafter contact was made with a penal lawyer and the appeal was got prepared in the last week of December, 1994. Again date is not mentioned as to on which date the appeal was prepared by the learned penal lawyer. Assuming for the sake of argument that the appeal was prepared on 24. 12. 94 during winter vacation and it was present on 2. 1. 1995 i. e. on the first opening day of this Court after winter vacation even they only 8 days would be excluded as office of the court was functioning on 23. 12. 94. Thus even if 8 days of winter vacation are excluded then the State is required to explain 44 days.