Rk Jetely (Deceased) & Ors v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER %

05.11.2012 C.M. No.18640/2012 (Condonation of delay) & LA. App. No. 265/2012 Though the delay is of nearly three years, to be precise of 1080 days in filing the accompanying appeal, but the burden to explain the delay is onerous because applicants/appellants are educated persons. The explanation for delay furnished is that applicants/appellants were not aware of filing of reference petition seeking enhancement of compensationnor of impugnedjudgmentof 23"* November,2009 and they had learnt about it, in first week of July, 2012 after President of Army Officers Association had inquired from applicants/appellants about the status of their case seeking enhancement of compensation in respect of their land which was acquired vide Award No.30/2002-2003. According to learned counsel for applicants/appellants, President of Army Officers Association was pursuing the case for enhancement of Page 1 compensationbeforethe ReferenceCourt and since the delay occasionedis neither intentional nor deliberate, therefore it ought to be condoned as the case of applicants/appellantsis coveredby the decisionof this Court titled Ranbir Sharma vs. Union ofIndia & Anr., 187 (2012) DLT 781. It is a matter of record that claimant - R.K. Jetley had left this world in July, 2010 whereas impugnedjudgment was deliveredin November,2009 and that period of limitationto file the appeal had already lapsed duringthe life time of claimant - R.K.Jetley. It is quite unlikely that applicants/appellantswould not be knowing about reference petition being filed to seek higher compensation. Since this appeal has been filed after enhancement of compensationin respect of acquisition in question in the appeals of similarly placed claimants in case titled Ranbir Sharma (supra), therefore, to dispel the impression that belated filing of appeals like the instant one is nothing but speculative litigation, applicants/appellants were required to meticulously explain as to how they had learnt about filing of reference petition by claimant - R.K. Jetley. Strictly speaking, applicants/appellants cannot be called upon to explain the delay from February till July, 2010, but certainly they are required to explain delay from August, 2010 till October, 2012. Apex Court in Lanka Venkateshwarlu(D) by LRs V5. State ofA.P. & Ors., 2011 (III) AD (SC) 237, has reiterated the parameters within which the discretion to condone the delay is to be exercised, by precisely observing that the concepts of 'liberal approach, justice oriented approach, substantial justice' cannot be employed to jettison the substantial law of limitation, especially in cases where the Court finds that there is no justification for the delay occasioned and that while considering applications for condonation of Page 2 delay,the courtsdo not enjoyunlimitedand unbridleddiscretionarypowers. All discretionarypowers, especiallyjudicialpowers, have to be exercised within reasonable bounds, known to the law. The discretion has to be exercised in systematic mamier, informed by reason. Whims or fancies; prejudices or predilections cannot and should not form the basis of exercising discretionary powers. This Court is consciousthat pedantic approach is not to be adoptedin such like matters but at the same time, ground realities are to be kept in mind, i.e., not to encouragespeculativelitigation.The parametersgoverning condonation of delay, as highlighted by Apex Court in Balwant Singh vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors., (2010) 8 SCC 685 needs no reiteration.The recent trend ofjudicial pronouncementsis to seek stricter complianceof the law of limitation as equities have to be balanced because burden of paying enhancedcompensationcannotbe passed on to the beneficiaries/thirdparties at any time. Upon testing the explanationfurnished for the delay occasioned,on the touchstone of logic, it becomes evident that the explanation for the delay occasioned is implausible on the face of it because, if President of Army Officers Association had been looking after the reference petition of claimants including that of R.K.Jetley, then there was no occasion for the President of the aforesaid Association to have inquired from applicants/appellants in July, 2012 about the status of the petition filed by R.KJetley to seek enhancement of compensation. The aforesaid dictum of the Apex Court in Lanka Venkateshwarlu (supra), has been followed by this Court in LA APP No. 617/2011 Satbir Singh V5. Union ofIndia &Ors' renderedon 30"^ November,2011 and LA LA.App.No. 265/2012 Page3 APP No. 15/2012,P.D. Goel vs. Union ofIndia & Ors. rendered on 20'*' January, 2012, while refiisingto condone delay of varyingperiodsto curb the recent unhealthy trend of speculative litigation. Finding instant matter, to be one of the same species, I find no justification to take a differentview than the one taken in the afore-noted decision of Satbir Singh (supra) as the delayoccasionedin the case in handdoes not appearto be bonafideone. The vice of speculative litigation is apparent on the face of it. Hence, while refusing to condone the delay, I dismissthe accompanyingappeal as barred by time. In view of the aforesaid, the application and appeal are dismissed in limine. (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE NOVEMBER 05, 2012 pkb Page 4

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 265/2012 , RK JETELY (DECEASED)& ORS Appellants Through: Mr.B.D.Sbarma, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Respondents Through: None. ; V CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR