Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab And Ors vs Hemant Rai on 17 May, 2016
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: Rameshwar Singh Malik
RFA No.2453 of 2015 and other connected matters -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RFA No.2453 of 2015 and other connected matters
Date of decision: 17.05.2016
State of Punjab and others
... Appellants
Vs.
Hemant Rai
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr. Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Vibhav Jain, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, DAG, Punjab.
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES/NO
2. To be referred to the reporters or not? YES/NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? YES/NO
*****
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J.
This batch of 44 appeals, bearing Regular First Appeal Nos.2453, 2454, 2572 to 2575, 2474 to 2511 of 2015, all filed by State of Punjab, is being decided vide this common order, as all these appeals arise out of the same acquisition and raise identical questions of law and facts.
Detailed factual background of the matter is not required to be noticed, for the reason that learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the State are ad idem that present set of appeals would be squarely covered by the order dated 27.09.2011 passed by this Court in RFA No.1006 of 2010 (Punjab State and others Vs. Usha Rani). It is also a matter of record that at a later point of time, 11 identical appeals and cross-objections were also disposed of by this Court vide order dated 23.12.2011 in terms of the order 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 21-05-2016 00:05:42 ::: RFA No.2453 of 2015 and other connected matters -2- dated 27.09.2011 passed by this Court in Usha Rani's case (supra). The latter order dated 23.12.2011 was passed by this Court in RFA No.2736 of 2006 (Punjab State and others Vs. Diwan Chand and others).
However, it is pertinent to note here, as pointed out by learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that the orders passed by this Court in Usha Rani's case (supra), are subject matter of challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of SLPs including SLP No.21691 of 2014 (Punjab State and ors. etc. etc. Vs. Shiv Charan and ors. etc. etc.), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide its order dated 24.07.2015, has directed the appellant-State to deposit 1/3rd of the enhanced amount within a period of four weeks, which shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the claimants upon furnishing security to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Pendency of the abovesaid SLPs before the Hon'ble Supreme Court is a matter of record. However, it has gone totally unexplained before this Court as to why the State of Punjab did not file instant set of appeals with the earlier batch of appeals, which were decided by this Court vide abovesaid order dated 27.09.2011 passed in Usha Rani's case (supra). Present set of appeals came to be filed only when land owners raised objections before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Charan's case (supra). This was the reason that all the appeals in the present set of appeals are inordinately delayed. Some appeals are delayed by 2366 days, some by 2431 days, many appeals are delayed by 1168 days, some are by 400 days and some by 307 days. There is hardly any explanation for this inordinately long delay in filing these appeals.
Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reason that all these appeals are covered by the earlier order dated 27.09.2011 passed by this Court in Usha Rani's case (supra), 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 21-05-2016 00:05:43 ::: RFA No.2453 of 2015 and other connected matters -3- applications filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay, are allowed for the reasons stated therein. It is so said because identical appeals filed on behalf of the State had already been dismissed by this Court, vide its order dated 27.09.2011 passed in Usha Rani's case (supra).
No other argument was raised.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the cases noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that all these appeals are liable to be dismissed, having been found squarely covered by the order dated 27.09.2011 passed by this Court in Usha Rani's case (supra) and the same are accordingly dismissed.
Resultantly, with the observations made above, all the abovesaid appeals as well as applications stand disposed of, however, with no order as to costs.
[ RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK ] 17.05.2016 JUDGE vishnu 3 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 21-05-2016 00:05:43 :::