Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mir Mohd Kasam Ali Khan Through His ... vs The State Of Haryana Through The ... on 20 December, 1989
Equivalent citations: (1990)97PLR632
ORDER G.R. Majithia, J.
1. This order will dispose of Civil Misc. applications No. 1044-C I to 1047-C. I of 1989. These applications for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act have been moved on identical grounds.
2. The facts:
Land measuring 18104 acres situated in seven different but adjoining revenue estates, viz , Bhojes Matour, Tipra, Naita, Keti, Kotfai, Plasra and Darara, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala, was acquired vide Government, notification No. 544, Agri-VII-68/093, dated l-2-196f, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (for short, the Act) The land was acquired for public purposes, namely, for Forest Plantation and other Anti-Soil Erosion Measures The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation @ Rs 30/- per acre The claimants, dissatisfied by the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, got references made to the Land Acquisition Court. 36 Land Acquisition References were made to the Land Acuqisition Court and those were consolidated with LAC Case No. 1/4 of 1971 (Pakiza Begum v. State of Haryana) and the evidence of all the references was recorded in that deference. (Pakiza Beguni is the mother of the applicant). The Land Acquisition Court vide his award dated May 33, 1973, enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs. 10/- per acre in each case Some of the claimants dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Court preferred regular first appeals in this Court. The brothers and mother of the claimant filed R.F.A No. 805 to 8S1 of 1973 and R.F.A No. 277 and 2 '8 of 1975 in this Court, which were decided on April 11, 1980 Smt Pakiza Begum, mother of the applicant died and Civil Misc No. 1086-C-l. of 1976 and 1087-C-l of 1976 were moved by her legal representatives, including the applicant, for bringing them on record These applications were allowed by this Court on December 20, 1976. The compensation payable to the legal heirs of deceased Pakiza Begum was disbursed through Cheque No. 050943, dated 25-7-1981.
3. In these applications the applicant states that he bad been ailing on account of Parkinson's disease and he paid Court-fee to his General Attorney, Shri Kailash Chander. for filing four appeals in this Court The appeals were not filed by the Genera! Attorney. He cancelled the General Power of Attorney granted in favour of Shri Kailash Chander aod appointed his son Subir Ali Khan as his General Attorney The General Attorney, after making enquiries, found that the appeals against the award by the Land Acquisition Court were not filed by the previous General Attorney, Shri Kailash Chatider The son of the applicant, who was appointed as the General Attorney, obtained certified copies of the award in March. 1989. The appeals accompanied by the instant applicants were filed in this Court on May 11, 1989, more than 16 years after the award by the Land Acquisition Court.
4. The story propounded in these applications on the face of it looks to be false. A reasonable prudent roan would have tried to find out in April 1980 as to why the appeals filed by him were not listed for hearing while that of his brothers and mother were listed for hearing along with the appeals filed by the other claimants against the award of the Land Acquisitions Court. The mattes did not stop there. The enhanced compensation relating to the land owned by Smt. Pskiza Begum (since deceased) awarded by the Land Acquisition Court was disbursed to her legal heirs including the applicant through a cheque dated July 25, 1981. Even on this date, it would have struck to average human being to make proper enquiries as to what had happened to the alleged appeals filed by him in this Court. 1 leave the matter at that. The applicant has deliberately withheld information from this Court as to on which date he had cancelled the General Power of Attorney in favour of Shri Kailash Chander. It is not disclosed when the misconduct of the General Attorney Shri Kailash Chander regarding nor filing of the appeals in this Court came to his notice It is also not disclosed as to on what date the applicant appointed his son Sujaat Ali Khan as his General Attorney.
5. To the contrary, it is revealed from the affidavit filed by the State that the General Attorney of the applicant, Shri Sujaat Ali Khan, had been filing affidavits before the Land Acquisition Collector-cum- Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Naraingarh in the year 1981. Sbri Sujaat Ali Khan was appointed as General Attorney on December 12, 1978. The appeals against the award of the Land Acquisition Court were decided by this Court on April 11, 1980. Assuming what is stated by the claimant is correct, his son was appointed as a General Attorney on December 12, 1978. He had been moving the authorities for payment of compensation to the applicant and he had sworn affidavits before the competent authorities that the principal was entitled to 8/24th share of the compensation amount and if any other claimant raised a claim, her will be personally liable to compensate that person.
6. The sequence of events clearly establishes that the claimant- applicant has deliberately made false statement. He appears to have been persuaded to cook up this story by some ingenious brain to extract money from the State. The doctrine of "sufficient cause" in Section 5 of the Limitation Act is one to be decided on the facts and circum- stances of a particular case. "Sufficient cause" must be a cause beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of Section 5 ibid. The cause for delay which a party could have avoided by the exercise of due care and attention cannot be a 'sufficient cause. The test whether or not a cause is sufficient is to see whether it is bona fide cause, inasmuch as nothing can be considered to be bona fide which is not done with due care and attention Where neither negligence nor inaction nor want of bona fide is imputable: to a party for the delay in filing an appeal it would constitute sufficient cause In the instant case, I am satisfied that the applications are lacking in bona fide The claimant, as stated above, has deliberately made false statement. The facts narrated above do not justify the grant of indulgence by this Court Learned counsel for the claimants has referred to a decision of the apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. v. Mst. Katiji, A.I.R. 1987 S. C. 1353. , which has no bearing on the facts of the instant case.
7. The applications are accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost.