IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RFA No.6483 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.10.2011 Omwati & others -----Appellants Vs. State of Haryana and others -----Respondents 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. S.P. Khatri, Advocate for the appellants. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. There is delay of 10 years and 247 days in filing this appeal. Prayer has been made for condoning the aforesaid delay by making following averments:- “1. That the Learned ADJ Sonepat had disposed off a bunch of 64 cases u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 20.9.2000. All the cases were consolidated in the main case LAC No.1 of 1995 titled as Kehar Singh etc. Vs. State of Haryana and enhanced the compensation @ Rs.125/- per sq. yard RFA No.6483 of 2011 alongwith other benefits under land acquisition act. 2. That the appellants/petitioners alongwith other co-villagers / claimants namely Moti Lal, Banwari Lal, Shanti Devi, Kali Ram, had also engaged Sh. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate of Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, for filing RFA against the impugned order of the ADJ, Sonepat dated 20.9.2000 for enhancement of compensation. The Counsel fee had already been paid to Sh. Ashish Kapoor for filing the appeal. 3. That Learned Advocate Sh. Ashish Kapoor had filed the RFA on 22.1.2001 vide dairy No.1471 in the Hon’ble High Court alongwith other appeals of the co-villages/ claimants within limitation. The photocopy of the receipt had been sent to the claimant/owners. The photocopy of the receipt is attached as Annexure A-1. 4. That the Hon’ble Justice Sh. Rajesh Bindal of Punjab and Haryana High Court has disposed off the entire bunch on 20.9.2010 inmain RFA No.1692 of 2001 Moti Lal Vs State of Haryana and enhanced the compensation upto Rs.250./- per sq. yard alongwith other statutory benefits under Land Acquisition Act. This present case is out of the above mentioned bunch matter. The section 4, 6, award and reference judgement are same. 5. That after some time the Ld. Advocate Sh. Ashish Kapoor, send the certified copies of the order to the other co-villagers mentioned above 2 RFA No.6483 of 2011 but the certified copy of the petitioners was not sent. Then the petitioners inquired why the copy of the order of their case could not be supplied. The petitioner was told by the counsel that your case could not be listed in the above mentioned bunch, as and when the petitioner case will be listed for hearing then it will be disposed off, only then the certified copy of the orders can be given. 6. That the petitioner appellant Siri Ram contacted the lawyer on telephone many time to know about the fate of their appeal, but on each and every time the petitioner appellant was told that your case has not been listed for hearing. 7. After some time the petitioner appellant asked the Learned Counsel Ashish Kapoor in the last week of the March 2011 to give the RFA No. of their case. The Learned Counsel replied that today my clerk is not available so I will give you the RFA No. on telephone, but till March, 2011 last the RFA No. was not supplied by the Counsel. After the doubtful statement of the Counsel, the petitioner enquired from the other source whether any RFA in the name of the petitioner is pending or not. Finally, it was found that no RFA is pending in the name of the petitioner/appellants in the High Court. 8. Then the petitioner enquired from the registry of the High Court and found that Learned Advocate Sh. Ashish Kapoor had filed the RFA on 22.1.2001 vide dairy No.1471 in the Hon’ble High Court within limitation. The registry raise 3 RFA No.6483 of 2011 objections on the case file but thereafter the case was not refilled. 9. Finally, the petitioner met the Learned Counsel in the first week of the April 2011 and asked about the status of the case, only then the Learned Counsel said that your case is not traceable and asked petitioner Siri Ram to supply the fresh copy of the reference court order so that the fresh case can be filed. 10. That the Learned Counsel Sh. Ashish Kapoor had not performed his duties to file the case properly and due to this wrong act of the counsel a huge economic loss has been caused to the petitioners so the petitioner has filed a complaint with the bar counsel of Punjab and Haryana against the advocate on 25.4.2011. 11. That the petitioner / appellant got the certified copy of the impugned orders dated 20.9.2000 on 11.8.2011. Due to this above mentioned reasons a delay of 10 years 247 days occurs in filing the case. This delay was beyond the control of the petitioner/appellant and neither it was intentional nor willful. 12. That the petitioner / appellants were under the impression that the appeal has been filed properly within limitation because the Ld. Counsel Sh. Ashish Kapoor had sent the receipt No.1471 of 2001 to the petitioner. After getting the filing receipt the petitioners were satisfied about the filing of the case. There are also many co-villagers whose land has been acquired vide the same notification, same Collector award and same Reference Court 4 RFA No.6483 of 2011 award. These are 4 or 5 active co-villagers who look after the entire proceedings of the bunch matter because all the cases were consolidated in the Reference Court. Meaning thereby all the claimant petitioners engaged Sh. Ashish Kapoor, Advocte. So, between the period from 20.9.2000 to 20.9.2010 many times the petitioner and co-villagers had enquired the counsel about the fate of the case. On each and every enquiry it was told by the counsel that the cases of your village has not come upon for regular hearing. So in these circumstances the petitioners-appellants are not at fault in any manner. 13. It is also pertinent to mention here that in RFA matters the cases will be consolidated in main case and after admission of the case there will be no proceedings requires in these cases, only the final hearing will take place. So, near about mostly villagers never find out about the fate of the cases because they know that all the cases of the villagers will be disposed off by a single order and when they had got the copy of the filing receipt in that situation no enquiry is required about the filing of the case. Due to the above mentioned mistake committed by the lawyer the delay of 10 years 247 days occurs. The delay is neither intentionally nor willfully. It is most important to mention here that the Hon’ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal has condoned the delay of 2727 days in RFA no.2772 of 2009 titled as Azad Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others. The facts of the Azad Singh case and 5 RFA No.6483 of 2011 the present case are similar as mentioned below:- That the date of notifications no.4, no.6 and award are the same even the Reference Court order is also same. Both the parties had engaged the Sh. Ashish Kappor, Advocate for filing the RFA in the Hon’ble High Court. In both the cases the case was not refilled and it was come to the knowledge of both the petitioners after the disposal of the other bunch matter by the Hon’ble High Court. Meaning thereby the present case regarding the condonation of delay is quite similar and the present petitioner is also entitle for the same relief regarding condonation of delay. A original copy of the order dated 3.12.2009 is attached for the kind consideration of this Hon’ble Court as Ann.A3.” Similar explanation was given by the appellant- claimants in RFA No.1883 of 2011 (Jaipal and others v. State of Haryana etc.) which was not accepted by this Court vide judgment dated 27.7.2011. The relevant part of the said judgment reads thus:- “From sequence of events it is manifestly clear that the appellants were totally negligent in pursuing their remedy. Admittedly, after engaging Mr. Ashish Kapoor as their counsel they never bother to check the status regarding filing of their appeals before this Court. It is not believable that appellants whose land had been acquired will not inquire about their case for enhancement of compensation. Though it has been said in the application 6 RFA No.6483 of 2011 for condonation of delay that they repeatedly asked their lawyer on telephone but on each and every time they were told that their case was not listed. Inspite of the aforesaid averment, the petitioners never thought of coming to their lawyer personally and check the status of the case. It is crystal clear from the facts that the appellants were grossly negligent in pursuing their case. Learned counsel on behalf of the appellants has tried to submit before this Court that similar plea has been accepted by this Court in RFA No. 2772 of 2009 titled as Azad Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others and a delay of 2727 days has been condoned. It is well settled that each case of condonation of delay has its own facts and each case is to be seen on its own facts to find out whether there are sufficient reasons for condoning the delay or not. Though an attempt has also been made to submit that for the negligence of the Counsel, the litigant should not suffer. It was also submitted before this Court that a complaint has been made to the Bar Council against the lawyer. However, it is coming out from the record that inspite of fact that from the very beginning Mr. Ashish Kapoor, was not giving satisfactory reply to them and was putting off the matter on one pretext or the other, still the appellants never thought of making any complaint regarding his conduct. Moreover, inspite of the fact that they came to know about non-filing of their appeal on the decision of the other cases, yet they have chosen to file the complaint against Mr.Ashish Kapoor, Advocate only on 12.03.2011 i.e. only one week before the filing of this appeal. It seems that even the filing of the aforesaid complaint is not bona fide and an attempt has been made to create evidence in favour of the appellants for condoning the delay. 7 RFA No.6483 of 2011 Thus, in these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to accept the explanation given by the appellants for condoning such a huge delay of 9 years 140 days.” For the reasons recorded in the said judgment, I find no merit in this application for condoning the delay in filing of this appeal. Dismissed. Since the application for condonation of delay has been rejected, the main appeal is also ordered to be dismissed being time barred. No other miscellaneous application survives. October 17, 2011 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE 8