1986 (8) TMI 440

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 7.50 per square yard. The petition of Mewa Ram is barred by l079 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. 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 (A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... than one reason. In the first place, they do not belong to that class of society for whose benefit the provision is in-tended and meant i.e. inarticulate and poor people who by reason of their poverty and ignorance have failed to take advantage of the right of reference to the civil court under s.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. On the contrary, the petitioners belong to an affluent class, and they are not persons who have been deprived of property without payment of compensation. The petitioners had all applied for refer- ence under s.18 of the Act and the civil court by adopting a different basis for computation, namely. treating the land to be potential building site, substantially enhanced the amount of compensation. On appeal. the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is restricted to persons who had not applied for reference under s. 18 of the Act. If these conditions were satisfied, the petitioners could have availed of the remedy provided under s. 28A of the Act. In that event, s. 25 would ensure to their benefit. Any other view would lead to disasterous consequences not intended by the Legislature. The decision in Madras Port Trust's case is clearly distinguishable. The question involved there was as to the right of refund of the amount of wharfage, demurrage and transit charges which admittedly became exigible. The Court granted special leave on the condition that the Madras Port Trust would refund the amount irrespective of the result of the appeal. At the hearing the Court declined to go i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X