Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Others vs M/S Palwell Export Pvt. Ltd. And Another on 7 December, 2011
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
R.F.A. No. 4481 of 2011 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
R.F.A. No. 4481 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision: 7.12.2011
State of Haryana and others
.. Appellants.
Vs.
M/s Palwell Export Pvt. Ltd. and another
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. H.S. Lalli, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana.
...
Rajesh Bindal J.
This is an appeal filed by the State against the award of the learned court below dated 28.7.2009 assessing compensation for the acquired land, for which notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') was issued on 14.12.1999. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 14.8.2000. The land is situated in village Khandsa, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, which was acquired for the purpose of development as commercial and industrial Sector 34, Gurgaon.
Learned counsel for the appellants could not dispute the fact that in fact, the appeal should not have been filed as the learned court below had merely relied upon a judgment of this court in R.F.A. No. 59 of 1997 -Attar Singh vs. State of Haryana, decided on 13.5.1999 for the purpose of assessment of compensation in the present case, especially considering the fact that the aforesaid judgment had attained finality. The issue under consideration in the aforesaid judgment was valuation of land pertaining to the same village which was acquired earlier and the area was developed. The court below had only granted increase for the time gap in R.F.A. No. 4481 of 2011 [2] two notifications.
This is one reason that the appeal should not have been filed and persons at the helm of affairs should have applied their mind before taking a decision to file appeal in the present case. Further, the award of the court below is dated 28.7.2009. The appeal was filed in this court on 18.5.2010. It was time barred on that day, but still it was thought appropriate to file the same without any application seeking condonation of delay. The Registry raised objection on 19.5.2010 as to how the appeal was within limitation. The same was re-filed on 2.8.2011 after a delay of 400 days. An application for condonation of delay of 192 days in filing the appeal was also filed. In the application seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal, it is stated that in view of the objection raised by the Registry of this court, the Advocate General's office had to seek the information from the department concerned. This cannot be said to be a good reason for condonation of delay of 400 days in re-filing the appeal when the Advocate General's office is manned by army of Law Officers.
For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is dismissed subject to payment of ` 50,000/- as costs, which shall be deposited with High Court Legal Services Committee. The costs be recovered from the guilty official(s) and deposited within three months. In case of non- compliance, the matter be put up before the Court.
( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 7.12.2011 mk