IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RFA No.2631 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.10.2011 State of Haryana -----Appellant Vs. Balbir Singh & others -----Respondents & other connected cases being RFA No.1153 of 2010 (O&M) State of Haryana & another -----Appellants Vs. Jit Singh & others -----Respondents RFA No.2632 of 2010 (O&M) State of Haryana -----Appellant Vs. Ram Lok & others -----Respondents RFA No.2633 of 2010 (O&M) State of Haryana -----Appellant Vs. Harnam Singh & others -----Respondents RFA No.2634 of 2010 (O&M) State of Haryana -----Appellant Vs. Harbans Singh & 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? RFA No.2631 of 2010 Present:- Mr. H.S. Lalli, Addl.A.G., Haryana for the appellant. Mr. M.K. Chauhan, Advocate for respondents. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. This judgment shall dispose of five appeals being RFA Nos.1153 and 2631 to 2634 of 2010, as the same have arisen out of one common award dated 16.2.2009 of the Reference Court. These are State appeals challenging impugned award of the Reference Court on the ground that the value determined is on the higher side. Various orders have been passed by this Court in these appeals from time to time. The zimni orders passed in RFA No.2631 of 2010 are reproduced hereinafter:- “Present: Mr. D.D. Gupta, Addl.A.G. Haryana. --- On request, adjourned to 4.8.2010. 12.7.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) Judge” “Present: Mr. D.D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. --- On request, adjourned to 19.8.2010. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of each connected case. 4.8.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) Judge” 2 RFA No.2631 of 2010 “Present: Mr. D.D. Gupta, Addl.A.G. Haryana. Notice in the application for condonation of delay to the respondents for 5.10.2010. 19.8.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) Judge” “Present: Mr. D.D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. M.K. Chauhan, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 6 in RFA No.2631 of 2010; respondents no.1,2,4,5,8 and 9 in RFA No.2632 of 2010 and respondents No.1, 3 to 9, 10 to 22, 24 to 28 in RFA No.2634 of 2010. --- Learned counsel appearing for some of the respondents submitted that respondents No.3, 6 and 7 (in RFA No.2632 of 2010) and respondent No.2, 23 and 30 (in RFA No.2634 of 2010) have already expired. He seeks time to bring their legal representatives on record. Service of unserved respondents be completed for 8.12.2010. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of each connected case. 5.10.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) Judge” “Present: Mr. D.D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. M.K. Chauhan, Advocate for 3 RFA No.2631 of 2010 respondents No.1 to 6 in RFA No.2631 of 2010; respondents no.1,2,4,5,8 and 9 in RFA No.2632 of 2010 and respondents No.1, 3 to 9, 10 to 22, 24 to 28 in RFA No.2634 of 2010. Mr. Anshul Shahi, Advocate for Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate for respondents in RFA No.1153 of 2010. --- Learned counsel for the State seeks more time to implead the legal heirs of deceased- respondents. Adjourned to 17.2.2011. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of each connected case. 8.12.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) Judge” “Present: Mr. K.C. Gupta, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the appellant. None for the respondents. --- Learned counsel for the State seeks another adjournment to implead LRs of deceased respondents as per order dated 05.10.2010 of this Court. On request, adjourned to 10.05.2011. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of each connected case. March 15, 2011 (RAM CHAND GUPTA) 4 RFA No.2631 of 2010 JUDGE” “Present: Mr. D.D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. --- Learned counsel for the State seeks more time to implead the legal heirs of the deceased- respondents on record. Adjourned to 25.8.2011. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of each connected case. 10.5.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) Judge” “Present: Mr. Ashok Jindal, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. M.K. Chauhan, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 6 in RFA No.2631 of 2010; respondents no.1,2,4,5,8 and 9 in RFA No.2632 of 2010 and respondents No.1, 3 to 9, 10 to 22, 24 to 28 in RFA No.2634 of 2010. --- Since December, 2010 adjournments were sought to implead the LRs of deceased-respondents. Again adjournment has been sought. There is no justification for granting more time to do the needful. However, in the interest of justice, last opportunity is granted to the appelalnt(s)-State to do the needful, subject to payment of cost of Rs.1000/- each in these appeals. The cost be deposited with the Legal Services Authority, U.T. Chandigarh. Let needful be done within three weeks from today. List on 26.09.2011. 5 RFA No.2631 of 2010 A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected cases. 25.08.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge” “Present: Mr. Hitinder Singh Lalli, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. --- Counsel for the appellant-State submits that in compliance of the order dated 25.8.2011, necessary applications have already been filed which have been returned with certain objections and the same shall be filed within two weeks from today. Adjourned to 14.10.2011. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected matters. September 26, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE” Inspite of costs imposed and opportunities granted, the appellant-State has failed to serve the unserved respondents and to bring on record the legal representatives of the respondents who are reported to have died. Again a request has been made for further adjournment. In view of the aforesaid orders passed by this Court from time to time, there is no justification in granting more time. Thus, these appeals are dismissed qua the unserved respondents and the respondents who are reported to have died. 6 RFA No.2631 of 2010 In RFA Nos.2631 and 2632 of 2010, there is delay of 212 days in filing and 100 days in refiling of the appeals and in RFA No.2633 of 2010, there is delay of 212 days in filing and 98 days in refiling, whereas in RFA No.1153 of 2010, there is a delay of 85 days in filing and 40 days in refiling of the appeal. In the application for condonation of delay i.e. C.M. No.6813-CI of 2010 in RFA No.2631 of 2010, it has been averred as under:- “1. That the present Regular First Appeal is being filed against the orders dated 16.02.2009 passed by the Ld. Addl.District Judge, Panchkula, whereby the compensation @ Rs.394/- per sq. yard was allowed. 2. That thereafter the Distt. Attorney, Panchkula sent his comments to the office of Legal Remembrancer, Haryana vide its letter No.555 dated 17.04.2009, the copy of which was received in this office on 17.04.2009. The limitation as conveyed was upto 13.05.2009. 3. That the office of Legal Remembrancer, Haryana issued necessary instructions to the office of Advocate General, Haryana vide his office letter No.25881 dated 05-05-2009 that this case is fit for filing appeal. The copy of which was received in this office on 11-5-2009. 4. That on 15.5.2009 the judgements and short orders in four cases were sent typing from the open market, same could be typed on 28.05.2009. 5. That the Hon’ble High Court remained closed from 01.06.2009 to 30.06.2009 due to summer vacations. 6. That on 06.07.2009 the dealing hand put up the file to legal cell through Naib Tehsildar (Appeal) to 7 RFA No.2631 of 2010 prepare the draft affidavit for stay, same was returned on 10.7.2009 with comments whether the execution has been filed or not to execute the judgment and what is the status thereof. 7. That due to heavy litigation work and shortage staff the dealing hand remained busy in L.A. Cases, and execution cases pertaining to Panchkula and Ambala, RFAs in the Hon’ble High Court and SLPs in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India upto 06.11.2009. 8. That the dealing hand again put up the case file to legal cell through Naib Tehsildar (Appeal) on 12.11.2009 to prepare the draft of stay affidavit, same was prepared on 13.11.2009. 9. That the stay applications and affidavits alongwith other requisite documents were sent to the office of Advocate General, Haryana vide this office memo no.8263 dated 16.11.2009. 10. That the office of Advocate General, Haryana informed this office vide his letter no.45269 dated 23.12.2009 that the above noted cases were filed in the Hon’ble High Court on 19.12.2009 when the same was returned with objection on 21.12.2009 that as to how these appeals are within limitation, the copy of which was received in this office on 18.12.2009. 11. That the dealing hand put up the file to legal cell through Naib Tehsildar (Appeal) on 19.01.2010 to prepare the draft affidavits for condonation of delay in filing and refiling, same could be prepared on 22.01.2010 and typed on 25.01.2010. 12. That on 01.02.2010 the affidavits were got vetted from the office of Advocate General, Haryana. 13. That on 05.02.2010 the affidavits were retyped and signed by the deponent on 24.5.10. 8 RFA No.2631 of 2010 14. That the delay in filing appeal, the delay of 212 days has occurred which is not intentional or malafide but due to reason as explained above and administrative exigencies. It is, therefore respectfully prayed that this application may kindly be accepted and the delay be condoned in the interest of justice.” Further it may be seen that in the application i.e. C.M. No.6812-CI of 2010 in RFA No.2631 of 2010 for condonation of delay of 100 days in refiling these appeals, following averments have been made:- “That the delay in refiling the appeal is not intentional rather the same has occurred due to administrative exigencies for removing the objections raised by the Registry of Hon’ble High Court. The office of Advocate General, Haryana has to contact/seek information from the department concerned. In this way some delay usually occur in re- filing the appeal which deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice.” A perusal of the averments made above would show that no explanation at all has been submitted for causing delay in filing these appeals. Except giving the dates and events, the appellants have not shown any sufficient cause or reason to explain as to how the delay occurred and what were the reasons causing such delay. However, on the basis of factual details as given in the application, it has been argued before this Court that 9 RFA No.2631 of 2010 the delay in filing as well as refiling these appeals occurred due to administrative exigencies and the time was taken at various stages for filing the appeals. In similar circumstances, such an explanation was also submitted by the State of Haryana in RFA No.4482 of 2011 (State of Haryana and anr. v. Naresh) decided on 27.9.2011, which was not accepted for the reasons recorded therein and the prayer for condoning the delay was not accepted. Thus, applications for condoning the delay in filing as well as refiling are rejected. Since delay has not been condoned, the main appeals are also dismissed being time barred. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case. October 14, 2011 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE 10