SANDEEP SHARMA,J. - (1.) Heard.
(2.) By way of instant application, prayer has been made on behalf of the applicant for condonation of delay in maintaining the accompanying appeal. The non ? applicants/respondents, by way of filing reply to the application, have opposed the prayer made on behalf of the applicant for condonation of delay on the ground that delay in maintaining the accompanying appeal has not been explained properly.
(3.) Hon'ble Apex Court in Dhiraj Singh (Dead) through Legal Representatives and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others , (2014)14 SCC 127, while dealing with the land acquisition matters, has categorically held that approach of the Court, while condoning the delay in filing the appeal, should be pragmatic and not pedantic. Court has further held that the the equities can be balanced by denying the interest to the appellants for the period for which they did not approach the Court. The substantive rights of the appellants should not be allowed to be defeated on technical grounds by taking hyper technical view of self ? imposed limitation. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: ? "16. The principles regarding condonation of delay particularly in land acquisition matters, have been enunciated in Collector (LA) v. Katiji , (1987)2 SCC 107, wherein it is stated in para 3 as under: (SCC p.108) "(3). The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice ? ?that being the life ? purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other Courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that: ? 1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non ?deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so." 17. The aforesaid judgment was followed by this Court in DDA vs. Bhola Nath Sharma , (2011)2 SCC 54, which was also a matter concerning land acquisition. 18. We, accordingly, allow these appeals. Impugned orders of the High Court are set aside. Delay in filing the LPAs is condoned. It is held that the appellants shall be entitled to enhanced compensation @ Rs.200 per square yard. However, for the period of delay in approaching the High Court by way of LPAs, in all these cases, no interest should be paid to them. Compensation shall be worked out accordingly and paid to the appellants within a period of three months from today." ;