IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.M. No. 5122 -CI of 2007 and
R.F.A. No. 2397 of 2007
Date of decision: September 23, 2008
Charan Singh and others
.. Appellants
v.
Collector Land Acquisition, Industries Department
Punjab and another
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Narinder Singh Pawar, Additional Advocate General,
Punjab for the respondents.
Rajesh Bindal J.
This is an application for condonation of delay of 3753 days in filing
the present appeal before this Court against the award dated 6.9.1996, passed by
learned District Judge,Kapurthala.
Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 1233 kanals 7 marlas was
acquired vide notification dated 24.9.1985 issued under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act’) for setting up of Integral Coach Factory
near Hussainpur Railway Station. The same was followed by notification under
Section 6 of the Act on 11.11.1985. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short,
`the Collector’) gave award of Rs. 21,108/- per acre for chahi land; Rs. 8,205/- per
acre for barani and gair mumkin kind of land. Aggrieved against the same, the
land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned District Judge,
Kapurthala, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties,
upheld the award of the Collector.
Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants relied upon Dilbagh
Singh v. Collector Land Acquisition Industries Department, 2003 (1) RLR 102 to
submit that delay of 3753 days in filing the present appeal before this Court
deserves to be condoned.
Referring to the aforesaid judgment, 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.
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.
The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay
of 3753 days was filed by the applicants-appellants before this Court on 16.5.2007
stating therein that one of them, namely, Charan Singh was out of country and
when he returned to India, it came to his notice from the villagers that other land
owners had filed the appeals. However, the application is lacking the details about
the dates when one of the applicants-appellants visited abroad and when he
returned back.
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I do not find that the cause
shown by the applicants-appellants for condonation of delay of 3753 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
23.9.2008
mk