R. F. A No. 3317 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 8158/CI/2010 and RFA No. 3317 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 16.1.2012 [ENTITY] Appellant vs [ENTITY] and another Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice [ENTITY] Present: Nr, [ENTITY], Advocate for
Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate, for the applicant-appellant.
[ENTITY], J The present appeal has been filed by the landowner seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 13.10.1995, issued under [SECTION] of the [ACT] (for short, `the Act'), the [ENTITY] sought to acquire land situated within the revenue estate of village Sewah, Tehsil and District Panipat for Sewerage Nikas Yojna. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 2,00,000/- per acre. Feeling dissatisfied, the land owners preferred objections. On reference under [SECTION] of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 31.3.2003 upheld the award of the Collector. Aggrieved against the award of learned Court below, the landowner is before this Court. Along with the appeal, application seeking condonation of delay of 2,417 days in filing the appeal has also been filed.
Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submitted that delay in filing the present 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 applicant-appellant and perused the record.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mewa Ram (Deceased) by his LRs and others vs [ENTITY], (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 [PRECEDENT], 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 [PRECEDENT], 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 2,417 days was filed by the applicant-appellant before this Court on 9.2.2010 stating therein that after the grant of compensation for the acquired land, the appellant and his sons purchased land in village Dikadla and shifted their residence to village Dikadla from Sewah. In the year 2009, when the applicant enquired about the reference filed regarding valuation of the acquired land, he came to know that the same had already been dismissed by the learned court below vide award dated 31.3.2003. It was further submitted that his counsel had told other landowners for giving intimation to him, but due to change of address, he could not be informed. Thereafter, immediately, the appellant filed the present appeal along with application for condonation of delay. Due to this reason, the delay occurred in filing the appeal. The delay is bonafide and not intentional. The appellant got knowledge about the decision of reference in the year 2009 but the appeal was filed on 9.2.2010. The plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that he had shifted his residence to village Dikadla cannot be believed. A perusal of the memo of parties of the appeal shows that he is shown to be resident of village Sewah even today. The aforesaid facts shows that he was satisfied with the award of the learned court below and the story put forward in the application is a concocted one. No affidavit of the Advocate or any of the villager supporting the aforesaid facts has been filed. The reasons given by the appellant for condoning the delay in filing the appeal are not sufficient.
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I do not find that the cause shown by the applicant-appellant for condonation of delay of 2,417 days in filing the appeal is sufficient.
Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.
16.1.2012 ([ENTITY]) vs. Judge