QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J.---The question raised in this writ petition can be stated shortly. It is whether the order, dated 28-3-1995 of the learned Additional Commission, Peshawar whereby condonation of delay was declined and the appeal filed by the petitioner under section 60 Of the N.-W.F.P. Urban Planning Ordinance, 1978 was dismissed as barred by limitation suffers from any legal infirmity.
2. Put shortly, the facts of the case are that certain landed property situate in Village Shahi Bala was acquired by the Peshawar Development Authority for implementation of a project called "Regi Lalma Housing Scheme". The acquisition was made in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the N.-W.F.P. Urban Planning Ordinance, 1978 and through an Award announced on 13-4-1992 compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.9.,082.71 per Kanal with 15 % acquisition charges. The petitioner was one of the affecters but he kept quiet for a noticeable period of two years and filed an appeal, along with an application for condonation of delay, on 30-4-1994 for enhancement of compensation but it was dismissed as time-barred on 28-3--1995. Feeling aggrieved he has filed this writ petition wherein he has prayed that the impugned order may be struck down and the appeal may be remanded for decision on merits.
3. It was vociferously contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that while declining condonation of delay and dismissing the appeal the learned Appellate Court had overlooked the fact that the petitioner had no knowledge either of the acquisition proceedings or the Award. It was further contended that the impugned order was iniquitous as the Appellate Court had accepted a large number of appeals arising out of the same Award and enhanced the compensation and besides some writ petitions seeking enhancement of compensation were awaiting disposal in this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents while addressing arguments on pre-admission notice took the stance that the petitioner had the knowledge of the acquisition proceedings as the requisite Notification was published in the Official Gazette and he had also received the compensation amount. He further submitted that an affectee having-no intimation of the award was compelled by section 60 of the N.-W.F.P. Urban Planning Ordinance, 1978 to file an appeal within six weeks of the award.
5. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner have not impressed us. The acquisition covered a large area, it was duly notified, the compensation was disbursed after the announcement of the award and the possession of the acquired land was taken by the Peshawar Development Authority, therefore, it does not appeal to reason that the petitioner had no knowledge of the acquisition proceedings or the award. The application for condonation of delay does not meet the requirements of section 5 of the Limitation Act because it neither contains a sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within time nor explains delay of each day, which is a condition precedent for condonation of delay. Even if it is presumed that the petitioner had no knowledge of the award he was obliged to file an appeal within six weeks of tire award in view of section 60 of the N.-W.F.P. Urban Planning. Ordinance, 1978 which is worded thus:--- "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. "
The second contention is misconceived inasmuch as the question of condonation of delay is determined on the touchstone of the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act and not on the principles of equity, Needless to mention that equity helps the vigilant and not the indolent. Besides, two identical Writ Petitions Nos.268 of 1993 and 702 of 1994 were dismissed by this Court on 7-7- 1994 and 22-3-1995 respectively. The impugned order does not suffer from any legal defect so as to warrant interference. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.