Judgment
$~21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:
28. h October, 2014 % + LA.APP. 227/2013 UNION OF INDIA Through: ..... Appellant Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Advocate versus SUMER CHAND (DECEASED) & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Sriti Bisoi, Advocate for respondent No.2-DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR Sunil Gaur, J (ORAL) C.M.No.15391/2013 (for delay) The stand taken in paragraph No.3 of the instant application discloses bureaucratic lethargy, which has caused delay of 208 days’ in filing the accompanying appeal. Applying the parameters governing condonation of delay, as reiterated by the Apex Court in Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy (2013) 12 SCC649 to the instant case, I find that the delay occasioned has not been satisfactorily explained. Hence, this application is dismissed. LA.APP. 227/2013 & C.M.No.15390/2013 (for stay) Impugned judgment grants compensation for ‘A’ category of land LA.APP.NO.227/2013 Page 1 @ `11,41,466/- per acre with consequential benefits to respondents in respect of their land situated in village Sanoth, Delhi acquired vide Notification of 1st June, 1998, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Since appellant’s application seeking condonation of delay stands dismissed, therefore, this appeal is dismissed as time barred. Even on merits, impugned order suffers from no infirmity or illegality, as it grants compensation at par with compensation granted to similarly situated persons in LA.APP No.86/2005, Mahinder Singh Vs. Union & Ors., decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 11th May, 2006. (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE OCTOBER28 2014 r LA.APP.NO.227/2013 Page 2