MEWA RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these special leave petitions which are much belated, the only question was whether the Court should entertain the petitions despite the delay and grant special leave merely because this Court in Paltu Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Nand Kishore and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. (Civil Appeals Nos. 1251 and 1252 of 1982, both decided on April 1, 1982) enhanced the rate of compensation for the adjacent land acquired to Rs. 17.50 per square yard. The petition of Mewa Ram is barred by 1079 days, that of Pat Ram by 1146 days and of Ram Sarup by 1098 days. We heard the matter thrice on the question whether there was any sufficient cause for condonation of delay under S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. We were not satisfied that there was any cause much less sufficient cause within the meaning of S. 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The petitioners then took time to file further and better affidavits explaining the unexplained, inordinate delay in moving the Court.

(2.) At the resumed hearing Shri S. N. Kacker, learned counsel for the petitioners, confines his submission to the change in law by the introduction of Ss. 25 and 28A by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act 68 of 1984) and places particular emphasis to Para (ix) of the Objects and Reasons, to the effect :

(3.) The learned counsel contends on the strength of the provisions contained in Ss. 25 and 28A that the Court should not be unduly technical and deprive the citizens of their legitimate claims. In support of his submission he relies on certain observations made by this Court in Madras Port Trust v. Hymanshu International by its Proprietor V. Venkatadri (dead) by Lrs. (1979 ) 4 SCC 176 : (AIR 1979 SC 1144) to the effect that plea of limitation by the Government to defeat just claims of citizens should not be countenanced. We are afraid, the contention cannot prevail.