RFA No.1076 of 2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.2610-CI of 2011 in/and RFA No.1076 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision:28.09.2011 Bhagat Ram and others ....Appellants Versus The State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: None. * * * RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) C.M.No.2608-CI of 2011 For the reasons mentioned in the application, same stands allowed and the delay of 27 days in re-filing this appeal is condoned. C.M.No.2609-CI of 2011 Allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M.No.2610-CI of 2011 in/and RFA No.1076 of 2011 A written request has been made to adjourn the case further but no one is present on behalf of the appellants to press the aforesaid prayer despite the fact that this appeal has been filed through Mr. Nonish Kumar & Sandeep Chauhan, Advocates who have duly signed the Vakalatnama and the personal difficulty of only Mr. Nonish Kumar, Advocate has been shown. Prayer for adjournment is declined. RFA No.1076 of 2011(O&M) 2 This is claimants' appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for their acquired land. This appeal is time barred and has been filed after a delay of 5535 days after the expiry of limitation period. The averments made in this application read thus:- “That the appellants land was acquired vide Notification dated 29.04.1985 for the purpose of Haryana Irrigation Research Station at Kurukshetra- Pehowa Road. The appellants filed their objections before the Land Acquisition Collector, Amabala and being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by him they filed reference under Section 18 and the Ld. Additional District Judge Kurukshetra passed an Award dated 02.12.1994. That thereafter being dissatisfied with this award of the learned Additional District Judge, the appellants thought to file appeal of the same in this Hon'ble Court and in pursuance thereof, they handeled all the documents and certified copy of the award to Sh. Naseeb Singh Saini, Advocate, District Courts Kurukshetra to prefer an appeal on their behalf before this Hon'ble Court. That out of the three petitioners before the Ld. Additional District Judge, Bhagat Ram and Jagat Ram were illiterate and simpleton persons and thus all the work related to Court and rest of the documentary work in regard to the agriculture was being conducted on their behalf by their brother Soran Ram. That infact, inspite of giving all relevant documents and requisite fee for the Professional services of the above stated Advocate, he did not file any appeal in this regard. But whenever he was contacted in that regard by the said Soran Ram, deceased father of appellant No.2 to 6 he conveyed that regular second appeal has been filed by him and that the appeal has RFA No.1076 of 2011(O&M) 3 been filed by him and that the appeal would take some time before it is decided by this Hon'ble Court. Meanwhile the said Soran Ram expired on 08.08.2003 and the appellants were unable to locate the above stated lawyer and thus were totally not aware of the status of their appeal. That recently, the landowners of adjoining land whose land was acquired through the same Notification informed that their appeal, viz, RFA No.1318 of 1992 has been allowed by this Hon'ble Court and their compensation amount has been enhanced. Thus the appellants started searching for their old papers in relation to their agricultural land and got hold of some torn out and lose papers which pertained to the award in relation to their acquired land. Upon making through search, they found that the said Advocate, Sh. Naseeb Singh Saini has expired few years back. Upon making requests, the family members of the said advocate allowed them to see for their case in the old diaries of their deceased lawyer and his other record. Upon through search the said record, it got revealed that none of the appeal in the name of the appellants or any of their predecessors has been filed by the said advocate. Therefore, without causing any further delay, the present appeal has been filed before this Hon'ble Court. The delay is totally unintentional and the same is without any fault of the appellants. The appellants herein should not be made liable for the fault of somebody else and in the interest of justice they should not be made to suffer because of their innocence and the inaction on the part of their deceased lawyer.” From the perusal of the aforesaid averments, it is clearly made out that the appellants were totally negligent in pursuing their remedy. It is RFA No.1076 of 2011(O&M) 4 not believable that the landowners whose land has been acquired and who are seeking enhancement of compensation will not inquire about the status of their appeal for many years. Such an explanation as made in this case has not been accepted by this Court in RFA No.2270 of 2010 decided on 22.07.2011. Thus, for the reasons recorded in RFA No.2270 of 2010 (supra), I find no sufficient reason to condone such a huge delay. Since the application for condonation of delay is rejected, this appeal is also dismissed being time barred. September 28, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) savita JUDGE