IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M. Nos.7264-65-CI of 2010 in/and RFA No.2960 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.9.2011 Satpal -----Appellant Vs. State of Haryana and others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present:- Mr. Gaurav Singla, Advocate for the appellant. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. This is claimants appeal challenging the impugned award seeking further enhancement of the compensation for their acquired land. This appeal is time barred and has been filed after a delay of 1438 days on expiry of the limitation period. The averments made in the application for condoning the aforesaid delay read thus:- “2. That the award was passed on 15/10/2005 and some co-sharer filed appeal and even the Govt. filed the cross appeals. Even the appellant was under the bonafide impression that since the appeal filed by the Govt., the appellant was arrayed as party and as such, they are not required to file separate appeal. Finally, the award was passed by this Hon’ble Court on 22/9/2008. The appellant under bonafide belief and on the advice of the counsel in the Ld. Trial Court RFA No.2960 of 2010 filed execution application for getting enhanced compensation alongwith initial compensation awarded by the Ld. Reference Court. However the objection was raised regarding non filing of appeal, and thereafter, the appellant came to know that without filing appeal compensation cannot be granted. It was because of bonafide belief the entire process occurred. Even otherwise, the delay is not intentional as the appellant is entitled same relief as other co- sharers in the land in question. Further more, the same appeals arises out of same acquisition are pending before this Hon’ble Court. One such appeal is RFA No.1521 of 2006 in land acquisition case No.78/2002. As per settled law if arising out of the same acquisition, certain matters are pending, the appellant can seek the indulgence of this Hon’ble Court for condonation of delay on the ground of parity. In that view of the matter no prejudice will caused to the respondents as the appellant is entitled to the same relief. Thus, delay of 1438 days may kindly be condoned. Furthermore, the appellant is not versed with technicalities and procedure of law, on that score also the appellant seeks the kind indulgence of this Hon’ble Court for condonation of delay.” From the perusal of the aforesaid averments, it is clear that the appellant has not pursued his remedy of appeal with due diligence and in fact, was negligent and callous in his approach. From the facts noticed above, it is clear that the appellant had within her knowledge the fact that other co- sharers have challenged the impugned award by filing separate 2 RFA No.2960 of 2010 appeals. He also knew that even the State of Haryana has also filed appeal against him and he was arrayed as a party, still he never chose to file appeal or cross-objection in that appeal. Undisputedly, even the appeals filed by the State and other co- sharers against the impugned award have already been decided by this Court on 22.9.2008. This shows total negligence on the part of the appellant in pursuing his remedy. It is well settled that a litigant cannot be given premium for his own fault. Such an explanation for condoning the delay has not been accepted by this Court in R.F.A. No.5351 of 2010 Chander Bhan etc. v. Land Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon etc. decided on 18.7.2011. No other reason much less sufficient cause has been shown to condone such a huge delay. Therefore, prayer for condoning the delay is rejected. Consequently, the appeal which is time barred is also dismissed. No other application survive. September 28, 2011 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE 3