- (1.) THIS interlocutory application in Letters Patent Appeal has been filed to condone the delay of 325 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. The Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 25.7.2011 passed in W.P. (C) No. 1019 of 2002. The said writ petition was filed by the Respondent No. 1 praying for a direction upon the appellants to pay compensation on the basis of registered sale deed dated 16.07.2001. Upon hearing the respondents/writ petitioners and also the appellant, the learned Single Judge passed the following order: Considering the facts and submissions, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Additional Collector, Ranchi to pass appropriate order within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If the original petitioner is found entitled to the amount, claimed by him, the admitted amount along with the interest in accordance with the provisions of the Act shall be paid to his heirs, within two months, thereafter.
(2.) BEING aggrieved by the above direction of the learned Single Judge, the State of Jharkhand has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal - L.P.A. No. 284 of 2012 along with I.A. No. 2100 of 2012 to condone the delay of 325 days in filing the appeal. We have heard Mr. Vijayant Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/Appellant and Mr. H.K. Mahto, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 4.
(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 4 has submitted that the order passed by the Writ Court in W.P. (C) No. 1019 of 2002 dated 25.07.2011 was already complied with by the appellants by passing the order dated 16.02.2012 vide Annexure -1 filed along with the Memo of Appeal. By perusal of said order passed in Memo No. 31(i) dated 16.02.2012, it appears that in compliance of the order passed in W.P. (C) No. 1019 of 2002 dated 25.07.2011, the order was passed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi. Thus, the Letters Patent Appeal cannot be entertained, moreover, when the same has been filed with the delay of 325 days. We also find that the reason for the delay has not been satisfactorily explained and the reason for the inordinate delay of 325 days is also not convincing. In the application seeking condonation of delay of 325 days, the appellants have not mentioned even a single date with respect to the movement of the file and steps taken in the matter.;