Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anil Kumar And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 2 December, 2013
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
RFA No. 3081 of 2012
1
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
AT CHANDIGARH
CM Nos.6145-47-CI of 2012 and
RFA No. 3081 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision : 02.12.2013
Anil Kumar and another
...Appellants
vs
State of Haryana and others
..Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present:. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the landowners.
Mr. Roopak Bansal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
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 6,610 days in filing the appeal has also been filed.
Briefly the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 20.04.1987 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act"), the State of Haryana sought to acquire land measuring 438.36 acres situated in the revenue estate of village Badkhal, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad for development and utilization as industries, Sector-48 at Faridabad. The same was followed by notification dated 19.02.1988, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') vide its award dated 29.03.1989 awarded compensation for the acquired land @ ` 3,50,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. Considering the material placed on record, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired @ ` 90/- per square yard. It is the award of the learned reference Court which is impugned in the present appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that delay in filing Devi Sharmila 2013.12.12 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RFA No. 3081 of 2012 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 6,610 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 2013.12.12 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RFA No. 3081 of 2012 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 6,610 days was filed by the applicants-appellants before this Court on 11.08.2010 stating therein that they were not aware of their rights of filing of appeal for further enhancement of the amount of compensation. They were wrongly advised by their counsel in the trial court that there is no scope for enhancement of compensation regarding LAC No.10 of 1992 as it would be covered by RFA No.492 of 1993 (LAC No.15 of 1992). They came to know about the filing of RFA No.2302 of 1992, which is connected appeal arising out of the same notification and the same has been admitted and pending for final hearing. This is how delay of 6,610 days occurred in filing the appeal. The delay is bonafide, not intentional or willful.
The cause shown by the appellants in filing appeal with a delay of 6,610 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 02.12.2013 sharmila Devi Sharmila 2013.12.12 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh