R.F.A. No. 3009 of 2008 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.M. No. 6202-CI of 2008 and
R.F.A. No. 3009 of 2008
Date of decision: 27.1.2009
Kundan Lal
.. Appellant
v.
State of Haryana and others
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. R.A.Yadav, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Navneet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana
for the respondents.
`
Rajesh Bindal J.
This is an application for condonation of delay of 2061 days in filing
the present appeal before this Court against the award dated 23.12.2000, passed by
learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad.
Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 184.27 acres, situated in
Village Jharsentli was acquired vide notification dated 8.5.1995, issued under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act’) for development
and utilisation as transport communication and commercial, residential and
institutional for Sector 61, Faridabad. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short,
`the Collector’) gave award of Rs. 5,85,000/- per acre for the acquired land.
Aggrieved against the same, the land owners filed objections which were referred
to the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad who keeping in view the
material placed on record by the parties, determined the fair value of the acquired
land @ Rs. 400/- per square yard.
Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant relied upon Dilbagh
Singh v. Collector Land Acquisition Industries Department, 2003 (1) RLR 102 to
submit that delay of 2061 days in filing the present appeal before this Court
deserves to be condoned. The submission 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 and pendency of another appeal
arising out of the same acquisition is a valid ground for condonation of delay,
especially when in some other cases, the delay was condoned.
R.F.A. No. 3009 of 2008 [2]
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Mewa Ram (Deceased) by his LRs and
others v. 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 v. 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 v. 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.
In Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by LRS v. Exe. Eng. Jalgaon Medium
Project and another, (2009-1) 153 PLR 128, Hon’ble the Supreme Court opined as
under:
22. Basically the laws of Limitation are founded on public policy.
In Halsbury’s Laws of England 4th Ed., Vol. 28, p. 266, para 605, the
policy of the Limitation Acts is laid down as follows:
“The courts have expressed at least three different reasons
supporting the existence of statutes of limitation, namely, (i)
that long dormant claims have more of cruelty than justice in
them, (ii) that a defendant might have lost the evidence to
dispute the stated claim, (iii) that persons with good causes of
actions should pursue them with reasonable diligence.”
23. Statutes of limitation are sometimes described as `statutes of
peace’. An unlimited and perpetual threat of limitation creates
insecurity and uncertainty; some kind of limitation is essential for
public order. This court in Rajender Singh and others v. Santa Singh
and others, (1973) 2 SCC 705 has observed: “the object of law of
Limitation is to prevent disturbance and deprivation of what may
have been acquired in equity and justice by long enjoyment or what
may have been lost by a party’s own inaction, negligence or laches”.
In Motichand v. Munshi, (1969) 2 SCR 824, this court observed that
this principle is based on the maxim “interest republicae ut sit finis
litum, that is, the interest of the State requires that there should be
end to litigation but at the same time law of Limitation are a means to
ensuring private justice suppressing fraud and perjury, quickening
R.F.A. No. 3009 of 2008 [3]
diligence and preventing oppression. It needs to restatement at our
hands that the object for fixing time limit for litigation is based on
public policy fixing a life span for legal remedy for the purpose of
general welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort
to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in
his jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the
vigilant and not of the sleepy.”
The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay
of 2061 days was filed by the applicant-appellant before this Court on 17.10.2007
with the following averments:
“That admittedly the land of village Ballabgarh i.e. the acquired land
of the present appellant and the land of village Jharsatli were
acquired by the HUDA by the same notification for development of
residential and commercial purposes of carving out Sector 61
Faridabad. The Ld. Addl. District Judge, Faridabad, vide his decision
dated 23.12.2000 pronounced the judgment regarding the land of
village Jharsatli while deciding 64 Land Acquisition Cases. As the
land of the petitioner was situated in village Ballabgarh and for that
no separate award was pronounced by the Ld. Addl. Distt. Judge,
Faridabad and when the applicant-appellants enquired from the court
of Addl. Distt. Judge, Faridabad then he came to know that
inadvertently the LA case No. 12 of 2000 pertaining to the land of
village Ballabgarh was clubbed and decided along with the cases of
village Jharsatli which was decided on 23.12.2000 and after
enquiring the same the appellant-applicant applied for the certified
copy on 28.4.2007 and the same was prepared on 2.5.2007 and
delivered on the same day and the applicant-appellant immediately
rushed to Chandigarh and got filed the accompanying appeal on
25.5.2007 and thereby the delay of 2061 days occurred without the
fault of the appellant-applicant.”No reason is also forthcoming as to why the appellant-applicant was
not following his case.Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant at the time of issuance of
notice of motion had stated that R.F.A. No. 1346 of 2001 filed by Haryana Urban
Development Authority against the appellant-applicant was still lying pending
before this Court. However, on verification from the record, it was found that the
same was dismissed on 3.5.2006.R.F.A. No. 3009 of 2008 [4]
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I do not find that the cause
shown by the applicant-appellant for condonation of delay of 2061 days in filing
the appeal is sufficient.Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.
Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.(Rajesh Bindal)
Judge
27.1.2009
mk