# State of U.P. and others v. Smt. Mahadevi

- **Citation:** (2012) 1 ILRA 389
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-04-04
- **Bench:** Sibghat Ullah Khan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-and-others-v-smt-mahadevi-42164
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Act-Section-5-Delay
of
20
years-in filing Land Acquisition AppealNo
reasonable
and
acceptable
explanation-except routine explanation
given-being state there can not be
separate provision of Limitation-held-in
land
acquisition
Law
of
Delay
not
available
to
either
Party-Appeal
dismissed on ground of un-explained
delay of 20 years.

Held: Para 6

In State of Punjab Vs. Harchal Singh AIR
2006 SC 2122 the Court has taken into
consideration the "Laws Delay" which
may not be attributable to anyone in the
land acquisition matters. In the instant
case also the matter has become almost
20 years old since the date on which
amount was enhanced by the reference
court.
Case law discussed:
J.T. 2012 (2) S.C. 483; A.I.R. 2010 SC 1323;
AIR 2006 SC 2122

## Text

1 All] State of U.P. and others V. Smt. Mahadevi
389
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.04.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SIBGHAT ULLAH KHAN, J.

First Appeal Defective No. - 260 of 1995

State of U.P. and others
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Mahadevi

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.M.A. Kazmi
S.C.

Counsel for the Respondents:
................................

Limitation
Act-Section-5-Delay
of
20
years-in filing Land Acquisition AppealNo
reasonable
and
acceptable
explanation-except routine explanation
given-being state there can not be
separate provision of Limitation-held-in
land
acquisition
Law
of
Delay
not
available
to
either
Party-Appeal
dismissed on ground of un-explained
delay of 20 years.

Held: Para 6

In State of Punjab Vs. Harchal Singh AIR
2006 SC 2122 the Court has taken into
consideration the "Laws Delay" which
may not be attributable to anyone in the
land acquisition matters. In the instant
case also the matter has become almost
20 years old since the date on which
amount was enhanced by the reference
court.
Case law discussed:
J.T. 2012 (2) S.C. 483; A.I.R. 2010 SC 1323;
AIR 2006 SC 2122

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J. )

1. These 9 appeals are directed
against common judgment, award and
decree dated 27.9.1993 passed by 5th
A.D.J. Bulandshar in 9 L.A. References
being L.A. Reference no.66 to 84 all of
1993. All these appeals have been filed
with exactly 500/- days delay. In each
appeal
time
to
file
supplementary
affidavit in respect of delay condonation
application
was
granted
and
supplementary affidavits were filed on
15.11.1995.
Through
the
impugned
judgment
compensation
has
been
enhanced from about Rs.20,000/- per
bigha to about Rs.70,000/- per bigha.

2. In the original affidavit filed
along with delay condonation application
it was stated that appellants i.e. State of
U.P.
through
Collector
Bulandshar,
S.L.A.O.
Bulandshar
and
Executive
Engineer Madhya Ganga Nahar Khand -
19 Aligarh got the copy of the judgment
on 6.11.1993 thereafter D.G.C. was
required to give his opinion. The D.G.C.
gave the opinion for filing appeal on
9.11.1993. The matter was referred to the
acquiring
body
which
sent
its
recommendation
on
21.12.1993.
Thereafter on 24.12.1993 matter was
referred to the State for obtaining sanction
to file appeal. The Government raised
some
queries
through
letter
dated
9.2.1994 which was replied on 18.3.1994
(para 12 of the affidavit). Thereafter
sanction was granted on 6.6.1994 and
27.6.1994. Thereafter it is mentioned in
para 15 that huge Court fees amounting to
Rs.30,000/- was required which was to be
paid by the appellant no.3. Appellant nos.
1 and 2 wrote eleven letters from 9.2.1994
to 17.5.1995 in that regard (para 15 of the
affidavit). Thereafter, in para 16 it is
mentioned that inspite of so many letters
money was not made available hence it
was withdrawn from P.L.A. account on
26.5.1995.
390 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

3. In the supplementary affidavit
filed on 15.11.1995 exactly same thing
has been stated. In para 7 of the
supplementary affidavit the 11 dates on
which reminders were sent by appellant
no.1 and 2 to appellant no.3 as mentioned
in para 15 of the original affidavit have
been again mentioned. Appellant no.3
even after 11 reminders from February
1994 till May 1995 (15 months) did not
remit the necessary expenses. Ultimately
expenses were withdrawn from P.L.A.
Account. It shows utter negligence of the
appellants.

4. In office of the Chief Post Master
General Vs. Living Media J.T. 2012(2)
S.C.483
Supreme
Court
refused
to
condone the inordinate delay (of 427
days) in filing S.L.P. paras 12 and 13 of
the said judgment are quoted below:-

"12) It is not in dispute that the
person(s) concerned were well aware or
conversant with the issues involved
including
the
prescribed
period
of
limitation for taking up the matter by way
of filing a special leave petition in this
Court. They cannot claim that they have a
separate period of limitation when the
Department
was
possessed
with
competent persons familiar with court
proceedings. In the absence of plausible
and acceptable explanation, we are
posing a question why the delay is to be
condoned mechanically merely because
the Government or a wing of the
Government is a party before us. Though
we are conscious of the fact that in a
matter of condonation of delay when there
was no gross negligence or deliberate
inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal
concession has to be adopted to advance
substantial justice, we are of the view that
in the facts and circumstances, the
Department cannot take advantage of
various earlier decisions. The claim on
account of impersonal machinery and
inherited bureaucratic methodology of
making several notes cannot be accepted
in view of the modern technologies being
used and available. The law of limitation
undoubtedly binds everybody including
the Government.

In our view, it is the right time to
inform all the government bodies, their
agencies and instrumentalities that unless
they have reasonable and acceptable
explanation for the delay and there was
bonafide effort, there is no need to accept
the usual explanation that the file was
kept pending for several months/years due
to considerable degree of procedural redtape in the process. The government
departments
are
under
a
special
obligation to ensure that they perform
their
duties
with
diligence
and
commitment. Condonation of delay is an
exception and should not be used as an
anticipated
benefit
for
government
departments. The law shelters everyone
under the same light and should not be
swirled for the benefit of a few.
Considering the fact that there was no
proper
explanation
offered
by
the
Department
for
the
delay
except
mentioning of various dates, according to
us, the Department has miserably failed
to give any acceptable and cogent reasons
sufficient to condone such a huge delay.
Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be
dismissed on the ground of delay."

5. Moreover, the enhanced amount
as awarded by the impugned judgment
must have been realised by the claimants
respondents long before. No one has
appeared on their behalf even though
notices on delay condonation applications
1 All] Vimlesh Kumar V. State of U.P.
391
were issued . Supreme Court in Stanes
Higher Secondary School Vs. Special
Tehsildar (L.A). A.I.R. 2010 SC 1323
has held that if the amount as awarded by
the reference court has been withdrawn by
the landowner then even if High Court
reduces the said amount, it would be quite
unjust to direct return of the said amount
(para 12).

6. In State of Punjab Vs. Harchal
Singh AIR 2006 SC 2122 the Court has
taken into consideration the "Laws Delay"
which may not be attributable to anyone
in the land acquisition matters. In the
instant case also the matter has become
almost 20 years old since the date on
which amount was enhanced by the
reference court.

7. Accordingly, delay condonation
application in each appeal is rejected.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.04.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AJAI LAMBA, J.

Bail No. - 307 of 2012

Vimlesh Kumar

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri D.P.Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 439Bail-offence under Section 363/366/376
I.P.C.-as per radiological examination
age of prosecutrix found 18-19-yearsstatement
U/S
164
categorically
accepted relationship with accused-who
herself taken away accused alongwith
her-considering these factors-applicantentitled for bail.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajai Lamba,J. )

1. Vimlesh Kumar, S/o Sri Bhagwan
Deen Garariya has filed this application
under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for bail in Case
Crime No. 49 of 2011 under Sections
363/366/376
I.P.C.,
Police
Station
Pachdevra, District Hardoi.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the
applicant contends that the prosecutrix is
found to be aged 18-19 years as per
radiological examination. In the statement
given by the prosecutrix under Section
164 Cr.P.C., she has categorically stated
that she had relation with the applicant
and it is she, who took Vimlesh Kumar
along with her. It has further been stated
in the statement that she was going to
contract court marriage with the applicant
when the police apprehended her.

3. Facts, as stated, on behalf of the
applicant have not been disputed by the
learned counsel for the respondent-State.

4. I have also taken note of the fact
that the applicant has been in custody
since 8.2.2011 and the investigation has
been concluded.

5. Considering the various factors,
including radiological age of the applicant
and her stand reflected from her statement
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.,
application for bail is allowed.

6. Bail to the satisfaction of the
court concerned.
---------