Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date Of Decision : 1.10.2013 vs State Of Haryana And Others on 1 October, 2012
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
Singh Varinder
2013.11.07 15:07
R. F. A No. 1965 of 2012 -1- I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court at
Chandigarh
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Misc. No. 4121/CI of 2012 and
RFA No. 1965 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision : 1.10.2013
Pune Ram ..... Appellant
vs
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: None for the applicant-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.
Briefly the facts are that vide notification dated 6.5.1992 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 Sonepat Patti Musalmanan, Hadbast No. 174, Tehsil and District Sonepat, for development and utilisation thereof as residential and commercial area at Sonepat. The same was followed by notification dated 5.5.1993 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') vide award dated 17.11.1994 awarded compensation @ ` 3,75,000/- per acre for chahi as well as gair mumkin kinds of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowner filed objections. On reference the learned court below vide award dated 20.9.2000 assessed the compensation for the acquired land @ ` 125/- per square yard. Aggrieved against the award of learned Court below, the landowner is before this Court. Along with the appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 4,146 days in filing thereof has also been filed.
Singh Varinder 2013.11.07 15:07 R. F. A No. 1965 of 2012 -2- I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh No one has appeared for the appellant at the time of hearing. In the appeal, the applicant-appellant pleaded 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.
Learned counsel for the State submitted that there is no ground made out for condoning huge delay of 4,146 days in filing the appeal.
Heard learned counsel for the State and perused the paper book. 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 appeal along with the application for condonation of delay of 4,146 days in filing thereof was filed by the applicant-appellant before this Court on 26.4.2012 stating therein that the reference filed by the appellant was being pursued by one Ram Narain, who did not inform them about the decision. He came to know in January 2012 from one Chandgi Ram, a co-villager that the learned court below had already decided the references. On coming to know about the decision of the references, the appellant obtained the certified copy and filed the present appeal along with application for condonation of delay. The delay had occurred in filing the appeal due to this reason. The delay is bonafide, not intentional or willful. However, no affidavit of co-villager or Ram Narain, who was pursuing his case, has been filed in support of the averments made in the application. No Singh Varinder 2013.11.07 15:07 R. F. A No. 1965 of 2012 -3- I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh reason is also forthcoming as to why he was not following his case diligently.
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 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 reason given by the applicant-appellant is not sufficient to condone huge delay. It may be noticed that a number of land owners aggrieved against the award of the learned Court below filed appeals before this Court which were disposed of vide judgment dated 20.9.2010, passed in RFA No. 1692 of 2001- Moti Lal and another vs State of Haryana and others. Present appeal has been filed thereafter.
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, prima facie, I do not find that the cause shown by the applicant-appellant for condonation of huge Singh Varinder 2013.11.07 15:07 R. F. A No. 1965 of 2012 -4- I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh delay in filing the appeal is sufficient. However, as counsel for the appellant is not available, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed in default. Consequently, the appeal and other accompanying application are also dismissed in default.
1.10.2013 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge