Regular First Appeal No. 5198 of 2008 (O&M) [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Regular First Appeal No. 5198 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 13.10.2009
Smt. Bimla and others ......... Appellants
versus
State of Haryana and others .......... Respondents
PRESENT:- Shri Shailendra Jain, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Lokesh Sinhal, Additional AG, Haryana.
HEMANT GUPTA, J (Oral).
The present appeal is directed against the award dated
5.3.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, on a
reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to
be referred as “the Act”).
Vide notification dated 15.11.1994 under section 4 of the Act,
the State Government notified that land measuring 1490 acres 3 Kanals and
17 Marlas (correct area found to be 1490 acres 2 Kanals 6 Marlas) was
likely to be needed for a public purpose. A notification under section 6 of
the Act was issued on 10.11.1995 and the Land Acquisition Collector vide
his award dated 3.4.1997 determined compensation at the rate of
Rs.4,13,600/- per acre.
Aggrieved against the said determination of award by the
learned Land Acquisition Collector, the appellants sought reference under
Section 18 of the Act. Apart from the reference by the appellants, there were
Regular First Appeal No. 5198 of 2008 (O&M) [2]
163 other references which came to be decided by the learned Additional
District Judge together on 5.3.2003 and the compensation awarded by the
Land Acquisition Collector was maintained.
387 appeals arising out of the said award were decided by this
Court on May 19, 2006. The amount of compensation has been determined
as Rs. 15 lacs per acre.
The present appeal has been presented on 29.4.2008 along with
CM No. 10979-CI of 2008 for condonation of delay of 1798 days in filing
of the appeal. It has been pleaded that Shri S.K. Gupta, Advocate, was
counsel for the appellants before the learned trial Court but the appellants
was not informed about the decision of the reference filed by him. The
appellants being rustic and illiterate villagers did not contact their counsel
on every date of hearing as reference was consolidated with other
references. The information about the decision of the appeal was received
by the appellants only in the first week of June, 2006 from their co-villagers
whose land was acquired and, thus, the present appeal was filed after
obtaining certified copy of the short order of Reference Court.
Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that
the appellants had no knowledge of the decision of the Reference Court
inasmuch as the appellants were not informed by the counsel representing
the appellants before the Reference Court. The appellants were not
appearing before the Reference Court as their references were part of large
group of reference. It was also pointed out that since there was no
enhancement by the Reference Court, the counsel for the appellants before
the Reference Court did not inform the appellants. The learned counsel for
the appellants has referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court
Regular First Appeal No. 5198 of 2008 (O&M) [3]
reported as Dilbagh Singh vs. Collector Land Acquisition, Industries
Department Punjab, Chandigarh and others, 2002(2) All India Land
Acquisition & Compensation Cases, and a Division Bench decision of
Orissa High Court reported as N. Budhiama (through L.Rs.) vs. Land
Acquisition Officer Ganjam and another, 2003(2) All India Acquisition
& Compensation Cases, 208 to contend that the Court should condone the
delay as there exists a sufficient cause.
The judgment in Dilbagh Singh’s case (supra) was considered
by me in CM No. 4900-CI of 2000 in RFA No. 2143 of 2000 titled
Bhushan Kumar & others vs. State of Haryana and others, decided
on 4.09.2003 when condonation of delay of about 858 days in filing of
Regular First Appeal No. 2143 of 2000 was being considered. After
considering the said and other judgments, it was concluded as under:-
” The proposition of law laid down in the judgments
referred to by the learned counsel for the appellants is
not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the provisions
of limitation has to be construed liberally and in favour
of the suitor, but where the principles laid down in the
judgments referred to above are applicable. One of the
principles which has been laid emphasis that ordinarily a
litigant does not stand the benefit on account of delay.
Herein the appellants have sought condonation of delay
after the appeal was allowed in another case. The
appellants were satisfied with the amount of
compensation and have thought of filing appeal only
when compensation was enhanced in the other cases.
Regular First Appeal No. 5198 of 2008 (O&M) [4]
Still further the substantial justice is not qua the
appellants alone but justice to the parties. It appears that
the appellants have taken a conscious decision of not
filing appeal being satisfied with the award enhanced by
the learned Additional District Judge. The appellant
could not be compelled to file an appeal and to claim
compensation. A right vested with the appellants to seek
enhanced compensation in appeal. However, no such
right was exercised, therefore, after the decision of the
appeal invocation of jurisdiction is mala fide.
In Balakrishanan case one of the guidelines is that
when the courts condone the delay due to laches the
court shall compensate the opposite party for its loss.
How the opposite party can be compensated with the
loss in Land Acquisition Cases. The claim of
compensation is claim for money. If delay is condoned
the appeal is bound to be allowed and the opposite party
is liable to pay enhanced compensation with interest,
even though the appellants have failed to invoke the
jurisdiction of this court for a long period. The opposite
party cannot be compensated for the loss if the
application for condonation of delay is to be allowed. If
the amount of compensation is to be enhanced the
liability of the State is to pay interest on the enhanced
amount of compensation from the date of taking over of
the possession. By inaction or the conscious decision if
Regular First Appeal No. 5198 of 2008 (O&M) [5]
the appellants have decided not to file appeal, the State
cannot be burdened with the financial liability whereby
the State is made to pay even interest for the delay of the
appellant”.
The principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment are
applicable with full force in the present case. The appellant has sought to
condone the delay in filing of appeal after the appeals in respect of same
acquisitions were decided and the amount of compensation was increased
substantially. For all these years, the appellant was satisfied with the amount
of compensation awarded. The appellant has sought to dispute the amount
of compensation only after the appeals of other land-owners was allowed by
this Court. Thus, I am of the opinion that filing of appeal at this stage lacks
bona fides. The appellant has not filed any affidavit of Shri S.K. Gupta,
Advocate, to the effect that he has not communicated the decision of the
Reference Court to the appellant. It is difficult to believe that 163 land
references were decided by the Reference Court but the appellant came to
know of the said decision only after the amount of compensation was
enhanced by this Court.
The judgment of Orissa High Court in N. Budhiama’s case
(supra) pertains to a case of a minor widow. It was the said fact which
weighed with the Division Bench while condoning the delay in filing of
appeal. I do not find that the said judgment is applicable to the facts of the
present case.
Similar application to seek condonation of delay was dismissed
by this Court earlier on November 3, 2006 (RFA No. 3970 of 2006 – Jangli
v. State of Haryana and others).
Regular First Appeal No. 5198 of 2008 (O&M) [6]
In view of the above discussion, I am satisfied that the
appellants have not made out any sufficient cause to seek condonation of
delay of 1798 days in filing of appeal.
Dismissed.
13.10.2009 ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ds JUDGE