(Delivered by Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J. ) 1. These 9 Appeals Are Directed
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
1 All] State of U.P. and others V. Smt. Mahadevi 389 APPELLATE JURISDICTION decree dated 27.9.1993 passed by 5 th CIVIL SIDE A.D.J. Bulandshar in 9 L.A. References DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.04.2012 being L.A. Reference no.66 to 84 all of 1993. All these appeals have been filed BEFORE THE HON'BLE SIBGHAT ULLAH KHAN, J. with exactly 500/- days delay. In each appeal time to file supplementary First Appeal Defective No. – 260 of 1995 affidavit in respect of delay condonation application was granted and State of U.P. and others …Petitioner supplementary affidavits were filed on Versus 15.11.1995. Through the impugned Smt. Mahadevi …Respondents judgment compensation has been enhanced from about Rs.20,000/- per Counsel for the Petitioner: bigha to about Rs.70,000/- per bigha. Sri S.M.A. Kazmi S.C. 2. In the original affidavit filed along with delay condonation application Counsel for the Respondents: …….......................... it was stated that appellants i.e. State of U.P. through Collector Bulandshar, Limitation Act-Section-5-Delay of 20 S.L.A.O. Bulandshar and Executive years-in filing Land Acquisition Appeal- Engineer Madhya Ganga Nahar Khand – No reasonable and acceptable 19 Aligarh got the copy of the judgment explanation-except routine explanation on 6.11.1993 thereafter D.G.C. was given-being state there can not be required to give his opinion. The D.G.C. separate provision of Limitation-held-in land acquisition Law of Delay not gave the opinion for filing appeal on available to either Party-Appeal 9.11.1993. The matter was referred to the dismissed on ground of un-explained acquiring body which sent its delay of 20 years. recommendation on 21.12.1993. Thereafter on 24.12.1993 matter was Held: Para 6 referred to the State for obtaining sanction In State of Punjab Vs. Harchal Singh AIR to file appeal. The Government raised 2006 SC 2122 the Court has taken into some queries through letter dated consideration the “Laws Delay” which 9.2.1994 which was replied on 18.3.1994 may not be attributable to anyone in the (para 12 of the affidavit). Thereafter land acquisition matters. In the instant sanction was granted on 6.6.1994 and case also the matter has become almost 27.6.1994. Thereafter it is mentioned in 20 years old since the date on which amount was enhanced by the reference para 15 that huge Court fees amounting to court. Rs.30,000/- was required which was to be Case law discussed: paid by the appellant no.3. Appellant nos. J.T. 2012 (2) S.C. 483; A.I.R. 2010 SC 1323; 1 and 2 wrote eleven letters from 9.2.1994 AIR 2006 SC 2122 to 17.5.1995 in that regard (para 15 of the affidavit). Thereafter, in para 16 it is (Delivered by Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J. ) mentioned that inspite of so many letters money was not made available hence it 1. These 9 appeals are directed was withdrawn from P.L.A. account on against common judgment, award and 26.5.1995. 390 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012 3. In the supplementary affidavit Department cannot take advantage of filed on 15.11.1995 exactly same thing various earlier decisions. The claim on has been stated. In para 7 of the account of impersonal machinery and supplementary affidavit the 11 dates on inherited bureaucratic methodology of which reminders were sent by appellant making several notes cannot be accepted no.1 and 2 to appellant no.3 as mentioned in view of the modern technologies being in para 15 of the original affidavit have used and available. The law of limitation been again mentioned. Appellant no.3 undoubtedly binds everybody including even after 11 reminders from February the Government. 1994 till May 1995 (15 months) did not remit the necessary expenses. Ultimately In our view, it is the right time to expenses were withdrawn from P.L.A. inform all the government bodies, their Account. It shows utter negligence of the agencies and instrumentalities that unless appellants. they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was 4. In office of the Chief Post Master bonafide effort, there is no need to accept General Vs. Living Media J.T. 2012(2) the usual explanation that the file was S.C.483 Supreme Court refused to kept pending for several months/years due condone the inordinate delay (of 427 to considerable degree of procedural red- days) in filing S.L.P. paras 12 and 13 of tape in the process. The government the said judgment are quoted below:- departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform "12) It is not in dispute that the their duties with diligence and person(s) concerned were well aware or commitment. Condonation of delay is an conversant with the issues involved exception and should not be used as an including the prescribed period of anticipated benefit for government limitation for taking up the matter by way departments. The law shelters everyone of filing a special leave petition in this under the same light and should not be Court. They cannot claim that they have a swirled for the benefit of a few. separate period of limitation when the Considering the fact that there was no Department was possessed with proper explanation offered by the competent persons familiar with court Department for the delay except proceedings. In the absence of plausible mentioning of various dates, according to and acceptable explanation, we are us, the Department has miserably failed posing a question why the delay is to be to give any acceptable and cogent reasons condoned mechanically merely because sufficient to condone such a huge delay. the Government or a wing of the Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be Government is a party before us. Though dismissed on the ground of delay." we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there 5. Moreover, the enhanced amount was no gross negligence or deliberate as awarded by the impugned judgment inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal must have been realised by the claimants concession has to be adopted to advance respondents long before. No one has substantial justice, we are of the view that appeared on their behalf even though in the facts and circumstances, the notices on delay condonation applications 1 All] Vimlesh Kumar V. State of U.P. 391 were issued . Supreme Court in Stanes herself taken away accused alongwith Higher Secondary School Vs. Special her-considering these factors-applicant- Tehsildar (L.A). A.I.R. 2010 SC 1323 entitled for bail. has held that if the amount as awarded by the reference court has been withdrawn by (Delivered by Hon'ble Ajai Lamba,J. ) the landowner then even if High Court reduces the said amount, it would be quite 1. Vimlesh Kumar, S/o Sri Bhagwan unjust to direct return of the said amount Deen Garariya has filed this application (para 12). under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for bail in Case Crime No. 49 of 2011 under Sections 6. In State of Punjab Vs. Harchal 363/366/376 I.P.C., Police Station Singh AIR 2006 SC 2122 the Court has Pachdevra, District Hardoi. taken into consideration the "Laws Delay" which may not be attributable to anyone 2. Learned counsel appearing for the in the land acquisition matters. In the applicant contends that the prosecutrix is instant case also the matter has become found to be aged 18-19 years as per almost 20 years old since the date on radiological examination. In the statement which amount was enhanced by the given by the prosecutrix under Section reference court. 164 Cr.P.C., she has categorically stated that she had relation with the applicant 7. Accordingly, delay condonation and it is she, who took Vimlesh Kumar application in each appeal is rejected. along with her. It has further been stated --------- in the statement that she was going to ORIGINAL JURISDICTION contract court marriage with the applicant CRIMINAL SIDE when the police apprehended her. DATED: LUCKNOW 06.04.2012 3. Facts, as stated, on behalf of the BEFORE applicant have not been disputed by the THE HON'BLE AJAI LAMBA, J. learned counsel for the respondent-State. Bail No. - 307 of 2012 4. I have also taken note of the fact Vimlesh Kumar ...Petitioner that the applicant has been in custody Versus since 8.2.2011 and the investigation has State of U.P ...Respondents been concluded. Counsel for the Petitioner: 5. Considering the various factors, Sri D.P.Singh including radiological age of the applicant and her stand reflected from her statement Counsel for the Respondents: recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., Govt. Advocate application for bail is allowed. Code of Criminal Procedure -Section 439- 6. Bail to the satisfaction of the Bail-offence under Section 363/366/376 I.P.C.-as per radiological examination court concerned. age of prosecutrix found 18-19-years- --------- statement U/S 164 categorically accepted relationship with accused-who 392 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION of assessment of water tax under CIVIL SIDE Section 53 (4) of the Act. DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.04.2012 There is nothing to show that the BEFORE petitoner had filed any objection to the THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J. assessment of annual value of the school THE HON'BLE PANKAJ NAQVI, J. building under the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959.