Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Kumar And Others vs The Land Acquisition Collector And ... on 25 November, 2013
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
RFA No. 7575 of 2011
1
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
AT CHANDIGARH
CM Nos. 17590-92-CI of 2011 and
RFA No. 7575 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision : 25.11.2013
Raj Kumar and others
...Appellants
vs
The Land Acquisition Collector and another
..Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present:. Mr. P.S. Rana, Advocate for the landowners.
Mr. D.D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
Rajesh Bindal, J.
This order will dispose of a bunch of appeals bearing RFA Nos.7575 to 7580 of 2011, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein.
The landowners are in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Along with the appeal, an application seeking condonation of delay of 6,016 days in filing thereof has also been filed.
Briefly the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 13.01.1981 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act"), the State of Haryana sought to acquire land measuring 33.22 acres situated in Karnal for development and utilization thereof as residential and commercial area in Sector-14 (Part-II). The same was followed by notification dated 12.12.1983 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') awarded compensation for the acquired land @ ` 70,080/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference, the learned court below determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 30/- per square yard. It is this award, which is impugned before this Court.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that delay in filing Devi Sharmila 2013.12.21 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RFA No. 7575 of 2011 2 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.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that there is no ground made out for condoning huge delay of 6,016 days in filing the appeal.
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 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 Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, decided on 22.08.2013, 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 Devi Sharmila 2013.12.21 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RFA No. 7575 of 2011 3 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 appeal along with the application for condonation of delay of 6,016 days was filed by the applicants-appellants before this Court on 06.05.2011 stating therein that the acquired land measuring 2 bigha and 14 biswas belonged to Darbar Singh and after his death, the same was inherited by his sons Madan Singh, Harbans Singh, Lal Singh, Balbir Singh, Pritam Singh, Kanwaljit Singh, Kesar Kaur (widow) and two daughters Kaushalya Devi and Maya Devi. Out of the aforesaid heirs of Darbar Singh, Kaushalya Devi filed RFA No.2827 of 1994 and Paramjit Singh and Smt. Bhagwanti widow of Harbans Singh filed RFA No.2763 of 1994 in this Court through Mr. P.S. Rana, Advocate to whom relevant papers for filing the appeals were given by Sh. Amrik Singh Warriach, Advocate, Karnal. After the decision in the aforesaid appeals by this Court enhancing compensation from `30/- per square yard to `37/- per square yard, the appellants came to know about the enhancement in the end of March 2011, then they contacted Mr. P.S. Rana, Advocate in first week of April, 2011 but he told them that no appeal on their behalf was filed in this Court, as necessary papers and fee were not given to him by Mr. A.S. Warriach, Advocate. Then the appellants applied for certified copy of the award and filed the present appeals. Thus, the present appeals have been filed, though with a delay of 6,016 days. The delay is bonafide, not intentional or willful.
The cause shown by the appellants in filing appeals with a Devi Sharmila 2013.12.21 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RFA No. 7575 of 2011 4 delay of 6,016 days in filing thereof cannot be said to be sufficient for condoning the huge delay.
Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, all the appeals and other accompanying applications are also dismissed.
(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 25.11.2013 sharmila Devi Sharmila 2013.12.21 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh