Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Sushma Devi And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 27 April, 2012
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
R. F. A No. 2011 of 2009 -1-
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Misc. No. 5595-97/CI of 2009 and
RFA No. 2011 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision : 27.4.2012
Smt. Sushma Devi and another ..... Appellants
vs
State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. R. S. Hooda, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
Rajesh Bindal, J By filing the present appeal, the landowners are seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Along with the appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 2,264 days has also been filed.
Briefly the facts are that vide notification dated 18.12.1991, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act), land situated within the revenue estate of villages Chakkarpur, Wazirabad and Haiderpur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon was acquired for development and utilization of the land as sector road at Gurgaon. The same was followed by notification dated 27.11.1992 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, the Collector) vide award dated 4.1.1994 assessed the market value of the acquired land of different villages at different rates. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 141.22 per square yard. Aggrieved against the award of learned Court below, the landowners are before this Court. Along with the appeal, an application seeking condonation of delay 2,264 days has also been filed.
R. F. A No. 2011 of 2009 -2-Learned counsel for the applicants-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.
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 appeal along with the application for condonation of delay of 2,264 days was filed by the applicants-appellants before this Court on 10.9.2008 stating therein that after the marriage they have been residing at New Delhi. Their signatures were obtained by their relatives to file reference. They used to enquire about the proceedings of the reference petition from their relatives. It was informed that as and when the reference petition will be decided, they will be informed. However, later on they were informed that their reference petition has already been decided vide judgment dated 1.4.2002. The appellants thereafter immediately obtained certified copy of the order and filed the present appeal. The delay had occurred in filing the appeal due to this reason. The delay is bonafide, not intentional or willful.
R. F. A No. 2011 of 2009 -3-The reason given by the applicants-appellants 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 15.10.2010, passed in RFA No. 1971 of 2002 - Naut Ram and others vs State of Haryana and another.
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I do not find that the cause shown by the applicants-appellants for condonation of huge delay in filing the appeal is sufficient.
Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal and other accompanying applications are also dismissed.
27.4.2012 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge