Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jawahar Lal And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 25 April, 2012
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
R. F. A No. 7355 of 2011 -1-
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Misc. No. 16937-40/CI of 2011 and
RFA No. 7355 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision : 25.4.2012
Jawahar Lal and others ..... Appellants
vs
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. R. K. Sharma, Advocate, 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 for condonation of delay of 10 years, 7 months and 21 days has also been filed.
Briefly the facts are that vide notification dated 6.5.1992 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') the State of Haryana sought to acquire land situated in the revenue estate of village Sonepat Patti Musalmanan, Hadbast No. 174, Tehsil and District Sonepat, for development and utilisation thereof as residential and commercial area at Sonepat.The same was followed by notification dated 5.5.1993 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') awarded compensation @ ` 3,75,000/- per acre for chahi as well as gair mumkin kinds of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference the learned court below assessed the compensation for the acquired land @ ` 125/- per square yard. Aggrieved against the award of learned Court below, the landowners are before this Court. Along with the appeal, an application seeking condonation of delay of 10 years, 7 months and 21 days has also been filed.
R. F. A No. 7355 of 2011 -2-Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants submitted that delay in filing 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.
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 appeal along with the application for condonation of delay of 10 years, 7 months and 21 days was filed by the applicants-appellants before this Court on 11.5.2011 stating therein that after the death of father of the applicants-appellants, the papers to file appeal were handed over to close friend of their father namely Shri Ram Lal. When they went to the house of Ram Lal, they were shocked to know that he had also expired in October 2011 and appeal on their behalf was not filed. The delay had occurred in filing the appeal due to this reason. The delay is bonafide, not intentional or willful.
The reason given by the applicants-appellants is not sufficient to condone huge 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 dated 20.9.2010, passed in R. F. A No. 7355 of 2011 -3- RFA No. 1692 of 2001- Moti Lal and another vs State of Haryana and others. Present appeal has been filed thereafter.
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I do not find that the cause shown by the applicants-appellants for condonation of huge delay in filing the appeal is sufficient.
Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal and other accompanying applications are also dismissed.
25.4.2012 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge