Punjab-Haryana High Court
Maha Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 5 April, 2010
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
R.A. No. 118-CI of 2009 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CM Nos. 12952 to 12954- CI of 2009 and
R.A. No. 118-CI of 2009 in
R.F.A. No. 391 of 2005
Date of decision: 5.4.2010
Maha Singh and others
.. Applicants-appellants.
v.
State of Haryana and another
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the applicants-appellants.
...
Rajesh Bindal J.
This order will dispose of the present application filed for review of the order passed by this Court on 7.2.2007. Along with the review application, application seeking condonation of delay of 878 days has also been filed.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 12.9.2001, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), the State of Haryana acquired land of the applicants situated within the revenue estate of village Patti Taraf Afghan, Hadbast No. 17, Tehsil and District Panipat for the purpose of shifting of dyeing units in Sector 29, Part-II, Panipat. The same was followed by notification dated 1.3.2002, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 3,50,000/- per acre. Feeling dissatisfied, the land owners preferred objections. On reference, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 259.91 per square yard.
A bunch of appeals pertaining to the acquisition of land were considered by this Court for the first time in R.F.A. No. 301 of 2005--Jitender R.A. No. 118-CI of 2009 [2] Singh and others v. State of Haryana and another and other cases which were decided on 22.11.2006 and the amount of compensation for the acquired land was further enhanced to Rs. 15,00,000/- per acre.
On the basis of the judgment in Jitender Singh's case (supra), R.F.A. No. 2050 of 2005 filed by the applicants-appellants was disposed of in terms of that judgment vide order dated 7.2.2007.
Against the judgment of this Court in Jitender Singh's case (supra), some of the land owners filed Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8206 of 2007 before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, which was dismissed in limine on 13.7.2007. Thereafter, the land owners, who had approached Hon'ble the Supreme Court, filed Review Application before this Court bearing Review Application No. 6 of 2009, which was allowed by this Court on 29.5.2009, thereby further enhancing the compensation to Rs. 16,08,000/- per acre. The applicant-appellant has filed application for review of the order passed in his case along with the application for condonation of delay of 878 days, which is under consideration before this Court.
In support of the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the application for review, learned counsel for the applicants- appellants submitted that the applicants herein were in the process of seeking opinion as to what course is to be adopted against the judgment of this Court passed in their favour. When they were still in the process, he came to know that in a Review Application filed by other land owners against the basic judgment, compensation has further been enhanced and accordingly, they have also filed Review Application now. He further submitted that in some of the other cases also, similar relief has been granted.
After hearing learned counsel for the applicants-appellants, I do not find any ground to condone delay of 878 days in filing the Review Application. As has been noticed in the preceding paragraphs, in the present case, the applicants-appellants just kept quiet after their appeal was decided by this Court. They preferred to file review application in this court only after the review application filed by some of other land owners was allowed. These land owners had earlier approached Hon'ble the Supreme Court and thereafter had filed review application in this court. This cannot be said to be a good ground for condonation of substantial delay. In case the applicants-appellants were aggrieved of against the judgment passed in his favour, they were required to avail of appropriate remedy immediately thereafter and not to wait for decision in any other R.A. No. 118-CI of 2009 [3] similar case and thereafter seek condonation of substantial delay in availing the remedy.
For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the application seeking condonation of delay. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the review application is also dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge 5.4.2010 mk