IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RFA No.6410 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.10.2011 State of Haryana & another -----Appellants Vs. Mrs. Deepa Yadav -----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:- Mr. H.S. Lalli, Addl.A.G., Haryana for the appellants. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. 1. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, delay of 15 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. 2. The State of Haryana has filed the instant appeal challenging the award dated 19.5.2010 of the Reference Court, Faridabad, whereby market value of the acquired land in question has been assessed at `1000/- per square yard on the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”). The instant appeal has been filed on the ground that compensation, as determined by the RFA No.6410 of 2011 Reference Court, is excessive and while determining the market value, the Reference Court has not appreciated the evidence on record properly. 3. However, it may be noticed that there is a delay of 344 days in filing of this appeal. The averments made in the application for condonation of delay for the aforesaid period reads thus:- “2. That after having obtained certified copy of the said award dated 19.5.2010, the District Attorney Faridabad referred the matter to Legal Remembrancer and Secretary to the Government of Haryana alonwith endorsement to this office vide memo no.1655 dated 11.6.10 which was received in this office on 14.6.2010 vide which the District Attorney opined to file the appeal. 3. That after examining the opinion of District Attorney and impugned award of the Court, the Legal Remembrancer & Secretary to the Government of Haryana issued necessary instructions to the office of Advocate General of Haryana, Chandigarh for filing of RFAs in the Hon’ble High Court vide his memo no.39624 dated 2.7.10, copy of which was received in this office on 7.7.2010. 4. That the office of the Advocate General of Haryana informed this office vide his letter no.22736 dated 8.7.10 for sending the necessary documents for filing the appeal in the Hon’ble High Court which was received in this office on 16.7.2010. 5. That after taking necessary action on the above said letter of the Advocate General of Haryana, the necessary documents were got prepared through 2 RFA No.6410 of 2011 private typing company as there is an acute shortage of staff and load of work in the office. The said papers for filing appeal were got typed and the same were handed over to the dealing assistant of office of the Advocate General of Haryana. 6. That the limitation for filing of appeal expired on 23.8.2010. 7. That there has been a delay of 344 days in filing appeal which has been caused due to the reason given in paras no.2 to 5 and due to shortage of staff and rush of work. There was no intention of causing delay in filing the appeal by the appellant.” 4. A perusal of the aforesaid averments would clearly show that after passing of the impugned award, the concerned officials were in receipt of the opinion and sanction of the Legal Remembrancer-cum-Secretary to the Government of Haryana and also from the office of Advocate General, Haryana for filing the appeal well within the time. In spite of the aforesaid fact, there is a delay of 344 days in filing of this appeal. In fact, there is no explanation given in the application for condonation of delay with regard to the delay caused in filing this appeal w.e.f. 15.7.2010 i.e. the date on which the advice of the Advocate General’s office was received in the office of Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Faridabad upto the date of filing the appeal. The only explanation offered is that there was an acute shortage of staff and load of work in the office and the work of documentation for filing of the appeal was outsourced. The 3 RFA No.6410 of 2011 aforesaid explanation is hardly a sufficient cause to condone the delay of 344 days in filing this appeal. 5. It may also be noticed at this stage that similar explanation was offered by the State of Haryana in RFA No.4218 of 2011 (The State of Haryana & anr. v. Khazan Singh) decided on 23.8.2011 and in that appeal, this Court had given an opportunity to the Land Acquisition Collector (incidentally, who happens to be the same officer as in the instant appeal also) to explain the administrative exigencies because of which delay has been caused. However, no explanation was offered by the State of Haryana in the said appeal. From the aforesaid facts, it is clearly made out that the State of Haryana has adopted a callous attitude and is not pursuing its cases with due diligence. It is well settled that no benefit can be granted to a person for his own wrong. 6. Not only this, a perusal of the impugned award would show that the same is based upon award dated 1.10.2009 (Exh.PX) passed by the Reference Court in the case of Khazan Singh v. State of Haryana (LAC case No.1 of 2007), whereby the market value of the similar land which was covered by the same notification was assessed at `1000/- per square yard on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. 7. Learned State counsel could not dispute the fact that the decision of the Reference Court is covered by the aforesaid award Exh.PX. There is no other evidence on record on the basis 4 RFA No.6410 of 2011 of which it can be said that the amount of compensation, as determined by the Reference Court, is excessive or that any material evidence has been ignored by the Land Acquisition Collector. 8. In this view of the matter, this appeal fails on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. 9. Dismissed. October 14, 2011 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE 5