RAM NARAYAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal Under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance is directed against the order of the Single judge of this Court dated 21 -2 -1969 passed in S.B. Civil writ petition No. 1205 of 1964, whereby the learned Single judge quashed acquisition proceedings subject to certain reservations.

(2.) THE facts may be recalled in brief : The present appellant and his brother Birbal Singh claimed to be the 'Khatedars' of agricultural land in dispute, which were recorded in their name in their joint 'Khata'. The acquisition proceedings in respect of the disputed lands were initialed and necessary notification Under Sections 4, 5(2) and 6 of the Rajasthan land Acquisition Act 1953, were issued in respect of which it was averred that the writ petitioners have no knowledge. In the acquisition proceeding the Land Acquisition Officer gave two awards on 28 -11 -59. In the writ petition the validity of the notification issued Under Section 4 and 5(2) of the aforesaid Act and so also the validity of the second award was challenged. The learned Single Judge found that the notification issued Section 4 of the aforesaid Act was not valid and eventually the acquisition proceedings were quashed, but as the respondents Nos. 7 to 9 were put in possession of some portion of the land, it was directed that the allotment of the land made by the State in their favour will remain intact and the second award was also quashed. Aggrieved against this order the present special appeal has been preferred by Ram Narayan Singh on 22 -4 -1969. Along with this appeal, an application Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has also been filed accompanied with an affidavit of the appellant Ram Narayan Singh.

(3.) IT is not dispute that the period of limitation for filing of the special appeal is 30 days and there was is delay of 24 days. The learned Counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that the appellant was given to understand that the period of limitation for filing leave to appeal to Supreme Court was 60 days, as advised by his counsel Shri Harnath Calla. Lard acquisition writ petitions used to be heard by the Division Bench and against the order of the Division Bench, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court used to be filed The writ petition No. 1205/61 was heard by a Single Bench, but still the appellant was advised that leave to appeal is to be preferred within 60 days, so acting under the advice of the senior counsel, the appeal could not be preferred With in 30 days The learned Counsel also referred to the correspondence exchanged between appellant, his brother aid the appellant's learned Counsel Shri Harnath Calla en the basis of which it was submitted that there were no laches, in action or negligence on the part of the appellant. Rather the appellant was in the bonafide belief that leave to appeal is to be preferred within 60 days, so on this ground, the appellant claimed condonation of delay of 24 days by an application Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act The learned Counsel urged that there is an uncontroverted affidavit of the appellant which clearly makes cut that there was sufficient cause which prevented the appellant from filing the appeal in time and what ever delay is caused in filing die appeal may be condoned.