Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab Through Collector vs Sh. Sukhraj Singh And Anr. on 25 May, 2000
Equivalent citations: (2000)126PLR274, 2000 A I H C 3264, (2001) 2 LANDLR 175, (2000) 126 PUN LR 274, (2000) 3 RECCIVR 437, (2000) 4 CURCC 519
JUDGMENT S.S. Sudhalkar, J.
1. This judgment will dispose of the CM. Nos. 2664-CI/98, 2655-CI/98, 2656/CI/98, 2657 CI/98, 2689-CI/98, 2660-CI/98, 2661-CI/98, 2662-CI/98, 2665-CI/98, 2667-CI/98 2668-CI/98 in R.F.A. Nos. 2415/98 2407/98, 2408/98, 2409/98, 2410/98, 2411/98, 2412/98 2413/98, 2416/98, 2417/98 and 2418/98 respectively.
These appeals have been filed against the award made by learned Additional District judge and the land acquisition references and because there was delay in filing the appeals, the appellant has filed applications for condonation of delay in these cases. No-ices were issued to the respondents. The grounds for condonation of delay which are toted by the counsel for the parties can be summarised as under :-
1. Appeals against the judgment dated 6.1.1995, were filed in the Court on 26.5.1998 because there was reasonable cause for the delay.
2. Certified copy was applied for on 6.1.1995 by the learned District Attorney. It was ready in July, 1995 and the limitation for filing an appeal was 2.6.1995.
3. On 16.3.1995, the learned District Attorney wrote a letter sending his comments alongwith certified copy of the judgment to the Director, Prosecution and Litigation, Chandigarh that it is a fit case for filing an appeal.
4. In response to the letter, the Director Prosecution and Litigation vide his memo dated 22.5.1995 issued instructions to the Advocate General, Punjab for filing of appeal.
5. On 27.5.1995, the learned Advocate General wrote to the Land Acquisition Collector for sending fact knowing official with court fee stamps payable in each case.
6. The Land Acquisition Officer vide his letter dated 27.6.1995 without mentioning the names of the parties sent different statements to the Executive Engineer and stated that according to the same, court fee stamps be supplied to the office of the Advocate General, Punjab. The letter was marked to various officials for doing the needful but due to lack of information in the present case, the Sub Divisional Officer No. l returned the said letter in original with the remarks to the Executive Engineer that the Land Acquisition Collector be asked to intimate as to how much amount of court fee stamps be given and further action be taken by the Land Acquisition Officer.
7. Again on 7.7.1995, the Executive Engineer written the above-mentioned letter to the appellant's office to consult the case in L.A.O.'s office and get the matter settled to avoid litigation.
8. The Sub Divisional Officer, Hoshiarpur working during the period May, 1995 to 23.8.1996 was transferred and due to non-supply of stamps papers by the appellant's office, the matter remained lingering on there.
9. Vide TPM No. FA-1-95/3812 dated 17.7.1995, the office of the Advocate General, Punjab again asked the Land Acquisition Collector to send the fact knowing official alongwith the court fee and statement showing the number of land references and two copies of judgment.
10. Wireless message dated 16.11.1995, 14.5.1996 and 8.2.1997 were sent by the Advocate General's office for sending court fee stamps and documents for filing appeal.
11. The appellant was unaware about the same and came to know only when D.O. letter dated 6.3.1998 addressed to Sh. Bikramjit Singh, Principal Secretary to Govt. Punjab alongwith a copy of the Land Acquisition Collector was endorsed to the appellant. As the court fee was not received, the appeal could not be filed.
12. In pursuance of D.O. letter dated 6.3.1998, the appellant immediately deputed representative in the month of March, 1998 and enquired from the office of the Advocate General about the present case.
13. The appellant arranged the amount for purchase of court fee on 22.5.1998 and then delivered personally to the dealing Assistant of the office of Advocate General, who after completing all formalities filed the appeal on 26.5.1998.
2. In the above way, the appellant has explained the delay from 30.6.1995 to 25.5.1998. The question is whether the delay has occurred because of sufficient cause. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the case of Punjab State etc. v. Onkar Nath and Anr.(1998-3)120 P.L.R. 492. In that case delay of 350 days was not condoned. It is held that a remedy, when gets barred by time, a definite right is vested in other side. In that case, delay was not explained properly and satisfactorily. He has also cited the case of P.K. Ramchandran v. State of Kerala and Anr. (1998-3)120 P.L.R. 605 (S.C.). In that case, the Supreme Court did not condone the delay of 565 days. It was held that the discretion exercised by the High Court was neither proper nor judicious.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited the case of N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, (1999-1)121 P.L.R. 462 (S.C.). In that case, the delay was sufficiently explained and it was rightly condoned but the opposite party was compensated by cost of Rs. 10,000/-.
4. Here, in this case delay has taken place and there cannot be any dispute about it. It is stated in the affidavit that the decision to file an appeal was taken on 22.5.1995 by the Director Prosecution and Litigation, Punjab and instructions issued to the Advocate General by a letter of the said date. The limitation for filing the appeal was upto 2.6.1995. Therefore, before the period of limitation expired, the decision for filing the appeal was to be taken. Considering this fact, it then transpires that the delay which has taken place is not regarding decision for filing appeal but because of the clerical lapses of the various departments. In such a case, the delay cannot be said to be not sufficiently explained and the principle in the case of N. Balakrishnan (supra) will be applicable to the present case.
5. The Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1353 laid down various guidelines. They are as under:-
"1. Ordinarily, a litigation does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.
2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.
3."Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.
4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of non-deliberate delay.
5. There is no presumption that delay is occassioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.
6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.
6. Considering the fact that the decision to file the appeal was taken well within the period of limitation this principle would tilt the case more in favour of the appellant. As a result, there was a sufficient cause of delay which has occasioned. The C.M.s are allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The appeal is listed for motion hearing on 6.7.2000.