Punjab-Haryana High Court
Randhir Singh And Another vs Union Territory on 10 December, 2009
Author: L.N. Mittal
Bench: L.N. Mittal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RFA No. 769 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision : December 10, 2009
Randhir Singh and another
.... Appellants
versus
Union Territory, Chandigarh
....Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
Present : Mr. B.S. Sewak, Advocate with
Ms. Manjit Kaur, Advocate for
Ms. Veena Kumari, Advocate, for the applicant-appellants
Ms. Lisa Gill, Advocate for UT Chandigarh-respondent
L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)
CM No. 12609.CI of 2009 The application is allowed and better affidavit of appellant no. 1 annexed with the application is taken on record subject to all just exceptions.
CM No. 1848.CI of 2009 This is application for condonation of delay of 2157 days in filing the appeal.
It is alleged that vide impugned award dated 9.12.2002 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, 12 references under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 including reference filed by the applicant-appellants herein were decided. Mr. Jagdish Chand Sharma, RFA No. 769 of 2009 (O&M) -2- Advocate was allegedly engaged by the appellants for filing appeal in this Court. The appellants were told by the said Advocate that appeal had been filed and admitted and would come up for hearing after 6/7 years. The appellants were given a piece of paper wherein RFA No. 1479 of 2003 was written. The said RFA had been filed by Puneet Singh whose reference was the main reference in the bunch of references decided by learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh. In January, 2009 Puneet Singh told the appellants that the cases were likely to come up for hearing being fixed on regular board of a Bench of this Court. Thereafter, the appellants visited the house of Mr. Jagdish Chand Sharma, Advocate where they came to know that the said advocate expired in the year 2007. The appellants then engaged another counsel and obtained certified copies of the impugned main award and brief award and then filed this appeal.
The application has been resisted by respondent-Union Territory, Chandigarh. It has been alleged that this Court vide judgment dated 4.2.2009 in RFA No. 727 of 2001 has enhanced the compensation by placing reliance on judgment dated 3.9.2008 in RFA No. 2326 of 1998 and the present appeal was filed on 31.1.2009 after decision of RFA No. 2326 of 1998. It has also been alleged that there is no sufficient ground for condonation of long delay.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
Learned counsel for the applicant-appellants vehemently contended that courts adopt liberal approach in matter of consideration of RFA No. 769 of 2009 (O&M) -3- delay. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the applicant- appellants has placed reliance on a catena of judgments namely Rattan Lal versus State of Haryana, 2001(Supp), LACC, 318, N. Budhiama (Through LRs) versus Land Acquisition Officer, Ganjam & Anr. 2001 (2) LACC 208, Lal Singh and others versus State of Haryana and another, 2002(2) LACC 535, M/s Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Smt. Nirmala Devi and others, AIR 1979 SC 1666, Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another versus Mst. Katiji and others, AIR 1987 SC 1353, Deputy Collector, Northern Sub-Division, Panaji versus Comunidade of Bambolim, (1994-2004) Supreme Court Judgments on Land Acquisition, 545 and Ramegowda, Major etc. versus Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, AIR 1988 SC 897.
It was also contended that RFA No. 2326 of 1998 pertains to earlier acquisition and not to the acquisition involved in the instant case.
Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that in judgment dated 4.2.2009 in RFA No. 727 of 2001 arising out of same acquisition, counsel for land owners relied on judgment dated 3.9.2008 in RFA No. 2326 of 1998 and the instant appeal was filed some months after said decision dated 3.9.2008.
I have carefully considered the rival contentions. It is correct that courts do adopt liberal approach in matter of consideration of delay. However, there has to be some limit to such liberal approach. The liberal approach cannot be stretched to an extent so as to render the law of limitation completely redundant and negatory. Delay of RFA No. 769 of 2009 (O&M) -4- almost six years in filing the appeal cannot be condoned merely for the asking. If such long delay is condoned without very strong reasons it would amount to scrapping law of limitation completely. This is not permissible. The advocate Mr. Jagdish Chand Sharma allegedly engaged by the appellants died in the year 2007 whereas the appeal had to be filed in the years 2002-2003. The appellants remained silent till January, 2009 i.e. for almost six years. The only explanation that their counsel told them that appeal had been filed would not be sufficient to condone the long delay of almost six years.
In view of the aforesaid, I find no sufficient ground for condonation of long delay of 2157 days in filing the appeal. The application for condonation of said delay in filing the appeal is accordingly dismissed.
RFA No. 769 of 2009
The appeal is consequently dismissed as time barred.
( L.N. Mittal )
December 10, 2009 Judge
'dalbir'