Punjab-Haryana High Court
Paras Singh And Others vs Land Acquisition Collector And Others on 5 September, 2013
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
RFA No. 468 of 2013
1
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
AT CHANDIGARH
CM Nos.663-64-CI of 2013 and
RFA No. 468 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision : 05.09.2013
Paras Singh and others
...Appellants
vs
Land Acquisition Collector and others
..Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present:. Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the landowners.
Mr. D.D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
Rajesh Bindal, J.
The landowners are in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Along with the appeal, application seeking condonation of delay of 3519 days in filing the appeal has also been filed.
Briefly the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 02.03.1993 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act"), the State of Haryana sought to acquire land situated in the revenue estate of village Malik Ugrakheri, Tehsil and District Panipat for development and utilization thereof as residential, industrial and commercial area for Sector-24, Panipat. The same was followed by notification dated 01.03.1994, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') vide its award dated 28.02.1996 awarded compensation for the acquired land @ ` 4,00,000/- per acre for Chahi and ` 2,75,000/- per acre Gair Mumkin kind of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference, the learned court below determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 178.40 per square yard.
Devi Sharmila 2013.11.27 15:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RFA No. 468 of 2013 2Learned counsel for the appellants 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 3519 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 Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, decided on 22.08.2013, 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 within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bonafide on Devi Sharmila 2013.11.27 15:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RFA No. 468 of 2013 3 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 3519 days was filed by the applicants-appellants before this Court on 16.07.2012 stating therein that before the learned court below, total eight reference petitions were filed in the name of different persons belonging to one family, as a big chunk of land was acquired belonging to the family of the appellants, out of which, seven petitions were clubbed with other references filed by the other landowners and were allowed vide order dated 28.08.2001. As in the present reference petition, there was claim for trees and plants, the same was adjudicated separately vide order dated 31.08.2002. Seven references, decided in the year 2001 were handed over to the counsel for the appellants and appeals were filed. Reference pertaining to the present appeal, which was decided in the year 2002 was also handed over to the counsel and Paras Singh-appellant remained under this impression that all the appeals against all the reference have been filed and are pending before this Court. Six appeals arising out of the seven land references, which were decided in the year 2001, were decided in the year 2010, whereas, one in the name of Joginder Singh and others was separated, as there was a dispute regarding Nursery. During this period, Paras Singh- appellant remained under the impression that the case in the name of Joginder Singh and others, was the present case, wherein dispute was Devi Sharmila 2013.11.27 15:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RFA No. 468 of 2013 4 regarding nursery. In first week of July, 2010, on enquiry by Harit Kumar, nephew of Paras Singh, it transpired that the case pertaining to Joginder Singh was different case and the appeal pertaining to the present land reference, had never been filed before this Court. Thereafter, the appellants applied and got the certified copy of the impugned award on 14.07.2012 and filed the present appeal on 16.07.2012. This is how delay of 3519 days occurred in filing the appeal. The delay is bonafide, not intentional or willful.
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I do not find that the cause shown by the applicants-appellants for condonation of huge delay of 3519 in filing the appeal is sufficient.
Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal and other accompanying application are also dismissed.
(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 05.09.2013 sharmila Devi Sharmila 2013.11.27 15:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh