' This writ petition is directed against the judgment of Additional Commissioner, Peshawar Division, Peshawar dated 5-12-1993 vide: which he dismissed the appeal of the petitioners (12 in number) as having been barred by law of limitation.
2. In brief, the facts may be stated that land, measuring 152 Kanals and 2 Marlas, was required by Peshawar Development Authority, Peshawar for the construction of Ring Road in Village Landi Akhun Ahmad. Consequently Notification under section 50 of the Provincial Urban Planning Ordinance, 1978 was issued on 2-2-1992 to owners and occupants as also a notice under section 52 of the said Ordinance was issued on 10-24992.
3. After considering the material and evidence produced before him, the Collector concerned assessed compensation at the rate of Rs,6,000 per Marla plus 2% increase in respect of the land situated at the point where the Ring Road intersects the road leading to the Abadi of the aforesaid village, to the extent of area 140 x 45 on both sides. In addition, compensation for building structure was also granted on the recommendation of the C. And W. Department. The award (price of land Rs,1,82,52,000 + 15% CA. Charges Rs,27,37,800 total amounting to (Rs,2,09,89,800) was announced by the Collector, in the above terms, on 18-3-1992.
4. Not content with this award, the petitioners preferred an appeal to the Additional Commissioner, Peshawar but the same was held time-barred and consequently dismissed, on that score, on 5-12- 1993. Hence this writ petition.
5. The sole point of determination in this writ petition is as to whether the High Court, in view of the factual position highlighted above, can go into the matter' of condonation of delay in filing the requisite appeal before the Commissioner concerned. Our answer is in the negative. Under section 60 of the Ordinance, the aggrieved person could file an appeal against the award of Collector within one month. However, where he had no intimation of the award, the appeal could be filed within six weeks of the award. In the present case appeal has been filed after a delay of more than one year. Every day, the petitioners were required to explain, after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for lodging the appeal. No plausible reason was furnished for condoning the inordinate delay. The only element pressed for condonation of delay is illiteracy and ignorance. The law requires vigilance and swiftness in seeking remedy in a Court of Law and cannot put these elements at the shelf. The petitioners, in the circumstances of the case, are guilty of gross negligence. In the absence of acceptable explanation making out sufficient cause, delay of one year could not be condoned.
6. Upon this stand point, the impugned decision cannot be overturned nor can be termed as illegal or viod. This writ petition is therefore, without any substance and is dismissed with costs.