Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date Of Decision : 11.11.2013 vs State Of Haryana on 11 November, 2013
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
Singh Varinder
2013.11.25 10:15
R. F. A No. 4708 of 2012 -1- I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court at
Chandigarh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Misc. No.8923 /CI of 2012 and
RFA No. 4708 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision : 11.11.2013
Indraj ..... Appellant
vs
State of Haryana ..... Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Adish Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. D.D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
Rajesh Bindal, J By filing the present appeal, the landowner is seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Along with the appeal, an application seeking condonation of delay of 7,210 days in filing thereof has also been filed.
Briefly the facts are that vide notification dated 22.8.1988 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the State of Haryana sought to acquire land in the revenue estate of village Mewla Maharajpur, Hadbast No. 4, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad, for development and utilisation thereof as residential and commercial area for Sector-46, Part-II, at Faridabad. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 7.7.1989. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') vide award dated 30.3.1990 assessed the compensation of the acquired land @ ` 3,50,000/- per acre for chahi and ` 1,50,000/- per acre for narmot and gair mumkin kinds of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowner filed objections. The learned court below vide award dated 5.6.1992 determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 101/- per square yard. Aggrieved against the award of learned Court below, the landowner is before this Court. Along with the appeal, an application Singh Varinder 2013.11.25 10:15 R. F. A No. 4708 of 2012 -2- I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh seeking condonation of delay of 7,210 days in filing thereof has also been filed.
Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submitted that delay in filing the appeal before this Court be condoned. The contention is that delay should not come in the way for granting substantial justice and the technicality should give way to justice. The Court should be liberal in condoning the delay.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that there is no ground made out for condoning huge delay of 7,210 days in filing the appeal.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mewa Ram (Deceased) by his LRs and others vs State of Haryana, (1986) 4 SCC 151 did not accept the prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeal because in another case enhancement of compensation for the adjacent land had been made.
In State of Nagaland vs Lipokao and others, (2005) 3 SCC 752, Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined that proof of sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of discretion by the Court in condoning the delay In D. Gopinathan Pillai vs State of Kerala and another, (2007) 2 SCC 322, Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined that when mandatory provision is not complied and the delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the Court cannot condone the delay on sympathetic ground only.
The issue regarding condonation of delay has been considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6974 of 2013- Basawaraj and another vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer, decided on 22.8.2013, wherein it has been opined as under:-
"The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court Singh Varinder 2013.11.25 10:15 R. F. A No. 4708 of 2012 -3- I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bonafide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature."
The appeal along with the application for condonation of delay of 7,210 days was filed by the applicant-appellant before this Court on 31.5.2012 stating therein that the appellant could not file the appeal in time as counsel in the court below had not informed him about the decision of the reference petition filed by him. The delay is bonafide, not intentional or willful.
The reason given by the applicant-appellant is not sufficient to condone huge delay of 7,210 days. The applicant should have been vigilant about his case. He cannot be permitted to sleep over the matter for about two decades and then seek condonation of delay.
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I do not find that the cause shown by the applicant-appellant for condonation of huge delay of 7,210 days in filing the appeal is sufficient.
Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.
11.11.2013 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge