2025:JHHC:12124-DB -1 of 2- L.P.A. No. 26 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI I.A. No. 252 of 2025 In/And L.P.A. No. 26 of 2025 Vijay Kumar Tiwari, aged about 54 years, son of Late Ramjit Tiwari, Resident of Village-Sahijana, P.O. & P.S.- Garhwa, District- Garhwa, Jharkhand .. ... ... Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa, P.O. & P.S.-Garhwa, District- Garhwa 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Garhwa, P.O. & P.S.-Garhwa, District- Garhwa 4. The Circle Officer, Garhwa, P.O. & P.S. –Garhwa, District- Garhwa 5. Dharmendra Kumar Upadhyay, aged about 45 years, son of Ganesh Dutt Upadhyay, Resident of Village- Sahijana, P.O. & P.S. Garhwa, District- Garhwa 6. Kamakhaya Narayan Singh, son of Ram Prasad Singh, Resident of Ward No. 14, Muhalla-Sahijna, P.O. & P.S.- Garhwa, District- Garhwa … ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Appellants : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III -------- Reserved on: 15.04.2025 Pronounced on: 24 / 4 /2025 M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.(Oral) 1) I.A. No. 252 of 2025 is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 by the applicant to condone the delay of 377 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal challenging the judgment dt. 8.8.2023 of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.(C) No. 1000 of 2023. 2) In the application filed seeking condonation of delay, the applicant had contended that the applicant believed that further steps can only be taken 2025:JHHC:12124-DB -2 of 2- L.P.A. No. 26 of 2025 after the proceeding under section 147 Cr.P.C. pending before the respondent no. 3 are disposed of. 3) It is contended that the applicant is prevented by sufficient cause in contesting the matter in different courts for protecting only the existing road said to be located in Government land. It is stated that the delay of 377 days occurred due to wrong legal advice given by the counsel and the delay is not intentional. 4) We are not satisfied that the reason assigned by the applicant for not approaching the Division Bench by filing a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge is a valid reason. Merely because some proceeding before respondent no.3 is pending, there is no reason for the applicant to wait till the same is disposed of. In fact, what is that proceeding, when was it disposed of and why even after its disposal there was a delay in approaching the Court is not pointed out by the applicant. 5) Clearly the applicant has been negligent in taking steps to file the Letters Patent Appeal within the time permitted by law for challenging the judgment of learned single Judge. 6) Therefore, we do not find any merit in this application. 7) It is accordingly dismissed. 8) Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal is also dismissed. 9) All pending applications shall stand closed. (M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) N.A.F.R. Sharda/-