- (1.) M. Katju, J. This appeal has been filed against the order of the Reference Court dated 27-10-1995 after a delay of one year and 20 days.
(2.) IN the affidavit in support of the delay condonation application it has been mentioned that after the judgment was delivered on 27-10-1995 a certified copy was applied for on 19-1- 1996, and an opinion was sought from the DGC (Civil) vide Annexure 1 to the affidavit. The opinion was received on 14-2- 1996, and thereafter, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bulandshahr wrote a letter dated 14-2-1996 to the Executive Engineer, Temporary Division PWD, Bulandshahr to file an appeal vide Annexure 2 to the affidavit. On 23-2-1996 the Executive Engineer wrote a letter to the Special Land Acquisition Officer to file the appeal vide Annexure 3, and copy of this letter was received in the officer of the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 24-2-1996. Thereafter, it appears that for six months nothing was done, and it was only on 14-8-1996 that the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr wrote a letter to the Joint Secretary, U. P. Government to obtain permission from the Legal Remembrancer, U. P. Government for filing the appeal vide Annexure 4 to the affidavit.
(3.) AGAIN on 21-8-1996 the SLAO wrote a letter to the Executive Engineer, PWD Bulandshahr for paying the Court fees vide Annexure 5 to the affidavit. On 25-9-1996 the Law Department, U. P. Government granted permission to file the appeal. AGAIN there was a delay and it was only on 8-1-1997 that the official came to Allahabad to file an appeal, but the appeal was prepared and filed on 11-3-1997. Thus there is delay of about six months from February, 1996 to August, 1996 and again an unexplained delay of about 6 months from 25-9-1996 when the Law Department U. P. Government granted permission to file the appeal till 11-3- 1997 when the appeal was filed. In our opinion there is no sufficient cause to condone the delay. Merely because the appellant is the Government it does not mean that it can fill an appeal whenever it chooses. In similar circumstances this Court dismissed the Section 5 application and the appeal in First Appeal No. 162 of 1997, State of U. P. v. Kamal Mustafa Khan, decided on 9-2-2004. The Court relied on the Supreme Court decisions in State of West Bengal v. Howrah Municipality, AIR 1972 SC 749 (para 27) and CWT v. Amateur Riders Club, 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 603. Following these decisions the application for condoning the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is rejected. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as time barred. Appeal dismissed. .;