Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date Of Decision : 19.11.2013 vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 19 November, 2013
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
Singh Varinder
2013.11.25 10:15
R. F. A No. 5678 of 2013 -1- I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court at
Chandigarh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Misc. No. 11010-11/CI of 2013 and
RFA No. 5678 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision : 19.11.2013
Ompati and another ..... Appellants
vs
The State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: None for the appellants. 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 seeking condonation of delay of 9,621 days in filing thereof has also been filed.
Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 4.6.1980, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State of Haryana sought to acquire land, situated in village Karnal, Hadbast No. 1 (District Karnal), for development and utilisation thereof as residential and commercial area at Karnal. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 16.4.1981. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'the Collector') vide award dated 6.7.1981 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 28,512.06 per acre for chahi/ nehri and ` 22,080/- per acre for barani, ` 4,808/- per acre for banjar quadim and ` 13,440/- per acre for gair mumkin khadan. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 6.10.1986 determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 33/- per square yard. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal. Along with the appeal, an application seeking condonation of delay of 9,621 days in filing thereof has also been filed.
Singh Varinder 2013.11.25 10:15 R. F. A No. 5678 of 2013 -2- I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh No one has appeared for the appellants.
The prayer made by the appellants is that delay in filing the appeal before this Court be condoned on the plea 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.
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 Special Land Acquisition Officer, decided on 22.8.2013, 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 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 Singh Varinder 2013.11.25 10:15 R. F. A No. 5678 of 2013 -3- I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh 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 9,621 days was filed by the appellants before this Court on 8.5.2013 stating therein that the appellants could not file the appeal in time as husband of appellant no. 1 and father of appellant no. 2 were not aware about the filing of the appeal but when they came to know about non-filing thereof, they filed the same. The delay is bonafide. It is neither intentional nor willful.
The reason given by the applicants-appellants is not sufficient to condone huge delay of 9,621 days in filing the appeal. The appellants are not illiterate. The applicants should have been vigilant about their case. They cannot be permitted to sleep over the matter for about three decades and then seek condonation of 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 of this court in Dr. Rajwant Singh (died) through LRs vs State of Haryana, 2008 (2) RCR (Civil) 780.
The aforesaid facts do not make out a case for condonation of huge delay of 9,621 days in filing the appeal. Prima facie, there is no merit in the application for condonation of delay, however, as counsel for the appellants is not present, the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is dismissed in default. Consequently, the appeal and the accompanying application are also dismissed in default.
19.11.2013 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge