- (1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisi tion Act.
(2.) 25 acres of land in village Rasoolpur Swad, Tahsil Kol, District Aligarh was acquired for workshop and office, appellants on basis of preliminary notification published under Section 4 (1) of the Act on 3-6- 1978. Land Acquisition officer offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 11. 25 per square yard of land. Claimants who were demanding corn-pension at much higher rate requested for reference and at their instance reference under Section 18 of the Act was made. Appellants were given opportunity to adduce evidence in the reference proceedings. Two exemplars were filed by the claimants, who stand in the position of plaintiff in the suit and who have to prove the rate on which compensation is payable. One of the exemplars is a sale-deed dated 25-11-1977 in respect of 316 sq. yards of land rejecting the rate at Rs. 30 per sq. yards. The other exemplar is a sale-deed dated 11-5-1977 in respect of 200 square yard reflecting rate of Rs. 35 per square yards. Learned Judge has determined the market value at the rate at Rs. 25 per sq. yard which is grievance of appellant. This appeal has been filed beyond the period of limitation for which an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed. The cause of delay explained in paragraph 3 of the affidavit is that the certified copy was obtained on 14-5-1993 well within period of limitation, since the award is dated 18-2- 1993. Thereafter, the Regional Manager sent the award to the Head Office at Lucknow, which was dealt with by the Chief Legal Advisor, Dr. R. K. Saxena, there is no explanation how the matter was dealt with by the Chief Legal Advisor till July, 1993. It is disclosed that in July 1993, Chief Legal Advisor wanted certain clarifications relating to the fate of the writ petition challenging notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Only question for consideration of Chief Legal Advisor, was whether compensation determined by respondent is high and whether the same would be assailed in appeal. Be that as it may, on 15-10-1993 Chief Legal Advisor again wanted information about the plot numbers and title of the tenure holders. This could have sought for in month of July itself. In absence of any material explaining the circumstances under which Chief Legal Advisor did not deal with the award from April to July and why piece meal infor mation were sought for, we feel that Chief Legal Advisor did not keep the statutory limitation in mind and did not protect interest of the appellant. Appellant is required to explain each days delay after expiry of the period of limitation. No doubt, appellant has no living mind and has to act through individuals. Therefore, a little play in the joint for movement of a file to take a decision is permissible. In this case, however, there is no explanation why there was delay of 8th month. Pendency of file with Chief Legal Advisor for three months and calling for information which was not necessary for deciding whether to prefer an appeal appears to be negligence.
(3.) IN view of non-explanation of each day's delay in referring the appeal, we are satisfied that there is no sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Accordingly, application for condonation of delay is dismissed. In the result the appeal is also dismissed as barred by limitation. Appeal dismissed. .;