IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM Nos.7799 & 7801-CI of 2011 and RFA No.3471 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 17.10.2011 Gurnam Singh and other ......Appellant(s) Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. R.K. Dhiman, Advocate for the appellants. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) CM No.7799-CI of 2011 After hearing learned counsel for the applicant-appellants, delay of 11 days in refiling this appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. CM No.7801-CI of 2011 and RFA No.3471 of 2011 There is a delay of 3557 days in filing of this appeal. The averments made in the application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal read thus: “That the claimant Labh Singh was living in the village and being an illiterate person does not know about the procedure of filing the appeal in the Hon'ble High Court. After receiving the judgment he kept the same in some important papers. Shri Labh Singh did not disclose about receiving the certified copy of judgment for filing appeal in this Hon'ble Court to anybody. Shri Labh Singh unfortunately died in the year 2002. A few days back Surjit Kaur widow of Labh Singh was searching some property papers in her almirah she found that certified copy of the said judgment was lying there. She showed it to Shri Gurnam Singh-the other appellant in -2- the case and asked him whether he had filed the any appeal against the judgment in the Hon'ble High Court for further enhancement of compensation or not. Then Gurnam Singh inquired from his lawyer who told him that no appeal has been filed in this case. He then requested him to file appeal in the Hon'ble High Court. The counsel told the appellant that there is a delay of 3557 days in filing the appeal. Hence the delay is not intentional but under the circumstances beyond their control.” A perusal of the aforesaid averment would show that the applicant-appellants could not file an appeal within limitation as Surjit Kaur w/o Labh Singh one of the claimants, was not in the knowledge of the award dated 29.8.2000 of the Reference Court, as certified copy of the same was found by her kept in an almirah by Labh Singh, her deceased husband, who did not disclose about the same to anyone and she found the said copy of the award a few days earlier to the filing of the instant appeal and made enquiries and thereafter, filed the instant appeal along with the said application. There is not an iota of evidence to support the aforesaid averment made by the applicant to condone such a huge delay. The impugned award was passed on 29.8.2000 whereas it has been alleged that Labh Singh died in the year 2002. Thus, no explanation is forthcoming for the aforesaid period, in which Labh Singh who was admittedly pursuing the land acquisition case before the Reference Court could have filed the appeal. Moreover, it cannot be accepted that the certified copy which was kept in an almirah and was under control of the applicant-Surjit Kaur could not come to her notice for a 9 long years. No doubt, the Court has to adopt a liberal approach for condoning the delay. However, the delay can be condoned only if some plausible explanation is given for condoning such a delay. -3- A perusal of the memo of parties of Reference Court would show that originally land reference was filed by the following persons: “(i) Gurbax Singh, Labh Singh and Gurnam Singh sons of Kartar Singh (ii) Iqbal Singh, Sarbjeet Singh Ss/o Amarjit Singh, (iii) Kulvinder Singh son of Labh Singh (iv) Labh Singh s/o Niranjan Singh Residents of Village Palsora, UT, Chandigarh.” In the application, the only explanation given is that Surjit Kaur w/o Labh Singh was not in the knowledge of certified copy, which was kept in almirah as Labh Singh had kept the same without informing anyone. However, no explanation is forthcoming about the knowledge and conduct of other applicant-appellants who were arrayed and represented before the Reference Court and have also filed appeal before this Court. They have failed to submit any explanation of not filing any appeal by them earlier. Thus, I find no ground to condone such a huge delay in filing of this appeal. Prayer in the application for condonation of delay is accordingly rejected. Since the application for condonation of delay itself has been dismissed, the instant appeal is also dismissed being barred by time. October 17, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE