Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Bimlesh And Others vs Central Government And Others on 5 September, 2013
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
RFA No. 1678 of 2013
1
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
AT CHANDIGARH
CM No. 3201-CI of 2013 and
RFA No. 1678 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision : 05.09.2013
Smt. Bimlesh and others
...Appellants
vs
Central Government and others
..Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present:. Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the landowners.
Rajesh Bindal, J.
The landowners are in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Along with the appeal, an application seeking condonation of delay of 5,253 days in filing thereof has also been filed.
Briefly the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 08.02.1989 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act"), the State of Haryana sought to acquire land measuring 61.04 acres situated in the revenue estate of village Karnal, District Karnal for development and utilization thereof as residential and commercial area in Sector-12, Part-II, Karnal. The same was followed by notification dated 07.02.1990, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') vide its award dated 22.03.1991 awarded compensation for the acquired land @ ` 2,75,000/- per acre for plain area and ` 1,87,968/- per acre for mugal canal area. 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 @ ` 76/- per square yard. It is this award, which is impugned before this Court.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that delay in filing the appeal before this Court be condoned. The contention is that delay Devi Sharmila 2013.11.27 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RFA No. 1678 of 2013 2 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.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants-appellants 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 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 Devi Sharmila 2013.11.27 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RFA No. 1678 of 2013 3 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 5,253 days was filed by the applicants-appellants before this Court on 12.03.2012 stating therein that after decision of the reference court, appeals were filed by the other landowners. The appellants were under the impression that the appellants will get same compensation as is determined in the case of other landowners by this Court as the land was acquired vide same notification. Therefore, the appellants did not file the appeal. Now, they came to know that compensation has been awarded only to the persons, who had filed the appeal. Thus, the present appeal has been filed, though with a delay of 5,253 days. The delay is bonafide, not intentional or willful.
The cause shown by the appellants in filing appeal with a delay of 5,253 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, the appeal and other accompanying applications are also dismissed.
(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 05.09.2013 sharmila Devi Sharmila 2013.11.27 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh