Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashrafi And Others vs Haryana State And Others on 24 January, 2012
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
R. F. A No. 7134 of 2011 -1-
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
AT CHANDIGARH
CM Nos. 16551-53/CI/2011 and
RFA No. 7134 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision : 24.1.2012
Ashrafi and others ..... Appellants
vs
Haryana State and others ..... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate, for the applicants-appellants. Rajesh Bindal, J
The present appeal has been filed by the landowners seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land.
Briefly the facts are that vide notifications dated 5.5.1997 and 15.5.1997 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') the State of Haryana sought to acquire land in the revenue estates of villages Kanhai, Wazirabad, Samaspur and Bindapur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, for public purpose. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') awarded compensation of acquired land of different villages at different rates. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. The learned court below vide award dated 6.5.2008 determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 717/- per square yard. Aggrieved against the award of learned Court below, the landowners are before this Court. Along with the appeal, application seeking condonation of delay of 1,052 days has also been filed.
R. F. A No. 7134 of 2011 -2-Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants submitted that delay in filing the present 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 applicants-appellants 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.
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 1.10.2010, passed in RFA No. 1824 of 2006- Sudama and others vs The State of Haryana and another.
The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 1,052 days was filed by the applicants-appellants before this Court on 22.6.2011 stating therein that the appellants being living in rural area, semi-literate, ignorant about their rights and were not aware of the intricacies of law and living in the rural area could not file appeal in time. When they came to know about their rights during the pendency of execution petition, they obtained certified copy of the order and filed the present appeal along with application for condonation of delay. This cannot be said to ground for condonation of delay.
R. F. A No. 7134 of 2011 -3-Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I do not find that the cause shown by the applicants-appellants for condonation of delay of 1,052 days in filing the appeal is sufficient.
Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal as well as other applications are also dismissed.
24.1.2012 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge