Delay of 55 days in filing the present revision petition is condoned.

Haryana Urban Development Authority, petitioner herein, was the opposite party before the District Forum.

Respondents/complainants’ land measuring several 167 kanal was acquired by the petitioner for developing Sector-17, Panchkula in the year 1983.  On part of the land, a house had been built-up by the

-2-

respondent for his personal use.  A policy was introduced, for the first time, in the year 1987 to allot a plot to the owner of land for the land acquired by the State Government.  High Court of Punjab & Haryana in CWP NO.14708 of 1990 titled as “Suman Aneja vs. State of Haryana” held that irrespective to the facts as to when the land was acquired, the persons whose land has been acquired were entitled to be allotted a plot.  HUDA accepted the said order and amended its policy in the following terms:

“The existing policy lay down that only those land owners, whose land was acquired on or after 10/9/1987 are eligible to acquire a residential plot.

“As a following up to the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP No.14708 of 1990 titled as “Suman Aneja vs. State of Haryana” circulated vide memo referred to above, the matter was placed before the Authority in its 77^th meeting held on 24/2/2000.  It has accordingly been decided that in view of the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, where the land was acquired prior to 10/9/1987 and plots are still available, while floating the plots on such land, the oustees claims shall also be invited and they will have to prior right for the allotment of plots.

-3-

Petitioner, thereafter, filed an application for allotment of house in Sector-17.  Instead of allotting a plot in Sector-17, Panchkula the petitioner allotted a plot of land measuring 3.36 sq. meters in village Budhanpur in compliance of the policy.  The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.13,403/- vide book No.804 dated 23.4.1987.  Respondent after coming into force of the new policy, requested the petitioner to either allot two 10 Marlas plots in Sector 17, Panchkula or a plot measuring 500 sq. yards out of the land acquired from them.  Since the request was not accepted, respondents filed the complaint before the District Forum.

District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to allot the requested plots to the respondent under the scheme dated 18.3.1992 in Sector-17, Panchkula or in any eventuality if the same was not possible owing to any vacancy, then in the adjoining sectors of Sector-17, Panchkula.  Rs.10,000/- were awarded for mental agony and harassment and Rs.2,000/- as costs.

Petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal before the State Commission with a delay of 75 days.  The State Commission by a detailed order rejected the application for condonation of delay.  The

-4-

State Commission came to the conclusion that the petitioner had failed to show sufficient cause to condone the delay.  Being aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

We have heard the respective learned counsel for the parties at length. 

The reason given in the application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay before the State Commission reads as follows:  

“2.     “That in order to file the appeal against the impugned order dated 30.9.2005 passed by District Consumer Forum, Panchkula the case is to be processed through various departments of appellant authority.  Therefore, due to this reason the appeal could not be filed in time otherwise there was no occasion for the appellant to allow the period of limitation to expire.”

No other reason has been given.  Contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner being a government agency, delays are sometimes caused due to movement of file from table to table; that some leniency should be shown to             the government agencies while considering their application for

-5-

condonation of dely.  The State Commission came to the conclusion that limitation provided under the Statute is the same for both the State as well as the ordinary litigant.  We agree with the aforesaid finding recorded by the State Commission.  This apart, under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 a person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum can prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of the order.  The State Commission has been conferred the powers to condone the delay and entertain the appeal after expiry of said period of 30 days if it is satisfied that there is sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within 30 days.  Sufficient cause in a given case depends upon its own peculiar facts and no hard and fast rules can be made out.  It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court of India as well as various other courts that each day’s delay has to be explained while seeking condonation of delay which the petitioner has failed to show in the present case.  A stereo type averment has been made in the application that the file was moving from various departments of the petitioner’s authority due to which reason the appeal could not be filed in time.  Such type of explanation cannot be

-6-

accepted to condone the delay, which was 2½ times over the period of 30 days provided for filing the appeal.  It may be stated here that the delay of 75 days was over and above the statutory period of 30 days given for filing the appeal.  The ground given for condonation of delay by itself is no ground to condone the delay.

For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this revision petition and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.