' JAWAID NAWAZ KHAN GANDAPUR, J.---The petitioners (140 in number), in this Writ Petition, seek to assail the Order of Additional Commissioner Peshawar Division, Peshawar, dated 7-4-1994 whereby he dismissed the appeals filed by them as being time-barred.
2. The facts bearing on the point of limitation may be stated briefly that, the Peshawar Development Authority intended to construct the Ring Road which required 105 Kanals 5 Marlas of land in village Pishtakara Bala and 68 Kanals 4 Marlas in village Sarband. Accordingly notification under section 50 of the Provincial Urban Planning Ordinance, 1978 was issued on 19-94987. Likewise a notice under section 52 of the said Ordinance was also issued on 19-9-1990 for the information of the persons interested therein to lodge any claim with respect to rate of land and interest, if any, or to make any objection of measurement. Interested parties put in their appearance before the Collector concerned on 30-10-1990. They were properly heard in relation to their respective claims and objections. However in the meantime, they consented to the acquisition of land but claimed compensation @ Rs,2,40,000 per Kanal. Since there was some clerical errors in the Notification under sections 50 & 52, the same were rectified vide; Corrigendum issued on 5-12-1990. The Collector, on a consideration of the material placed before him, assessed the compensation rate at Rs,1,43,743/60 per Kanal on the basis of two years average sale having taken place in Village Pistkhara from 19-9-1988 to 19-9-1990 irrespective of the kind and nature of soil, while at Rs,1,34,171/82 per Kanal in village Sarband. In the above terms, the Collector, announced his award on 10-12-1990.
3. Feeling dissatisfied with the said award, the appeals were preferred sometimes in January, 1993.
Section 60 of the aforesaid Ordinance provides limitation period for filing of appeal in the, following words:-- "Appeal against award:- (1) The Board or any person aggrieved by an award of the Collector made under section 53, may, within one month of such award, appeal to the Commissioner. Where the affected party had no intimation of the award, the appeal may be filed within six weeks of the award."
(2) The Commissioner may, after giving the Board and the persons affected by the award an opportunity of submitting any objection to the appeal and after hearing them, make such order as he may deem fit."
4. From the above provision, it is crystal clear that, in the first instance, the appeals were required to be filed within one month and, in the next place, in the event of want of intimation, appeals could be lodged within 45 days. In the instant case, the appeals were filed after a delay of more than two years. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners was required to explain delay of every day after the expiry of period of limitation prescribed for filing the appeal. No explanation, in this behalf, is furnished either in the grounds of writ petition during the course of arguments.
Nevertheless it was broadly stated that the -majority of the petitioners are illiterate persons. That was hardly a good ground to condone the inordinate delay. It is a matter of common experience that majority of the litigants, in our country, are suffering from this infirmity. Therefore, a rule of condonation of delay cannot be safely based on it. The law requires swiftness of required steps and vigilance. It does not countenance (favour or approve) negligence or indolence/habitual idleness. The petitioners, in the circumstances of this case, are guilty of gross negligence and the plea of ignorance is not available to them to over come the bar of limitation created, of course, by their own act.
5. Upon this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the .Impugned decision cannot be termed either illegal, infirm or void. The writ petition is devoid of merit and dismissed consequently with costs.
6. For the reasons recorded above, writ petition No,1057/94, filed by Mazullah Khan and 22 others, also stands rejected with costs.