RFA No.2950 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.2950 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:15.09.2011 Satish Kumar ....Appellant Versus 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. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the appellant. * * * RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) C.M.No.6785-CI of 2011 Application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Applicant-Satish Kumar is allowed to pursue this appeal on behalf of Ram Piari since deceased, however, this will not be construed to mean any expression on the determination of rights of other legal heirs to the inheritance of Ram Piari-deceased. C.M.No.6783-CI of 2011 Application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. C.M.No.6784-CI of 2011 The landowners have filed the instant appeal challenging impugned award dated 20.09.2000 of the Reference Court on the ground of inadequate compensation. This appeal has been filed after expiry of the period of RFA No.2950 of 2011 (O&M) 2 limitation and there is a delay of 3718 days in filing this appeal. Alongwith this appeal, an application has been filed for condoning the aforesaid delay making the following averments:- “That the learned Reference Court announced the award on 20.09.2000, certified copy of which was applied on 21.12.2010 and the same was prepared on 22.12.2010. The present appeal is being filed on 23.02.2011 and in this way there is delay of 3718 days in filing the appeal. That the delay of 3718 days in filing the appeal has occurred due to inevitable circumstances which were beyond the control of the applicant. As a matter of fact the applicant had applied the certified copy of the award dated 20.09.2000 on 29.9.2000 and the same was prepared on 31.10.2000. The present applicants and some other land owners who also wanted to file the appeal in this Hon'ble Court for enhancement of compensation were in touch with one Ram Lal son of Kanhaiya Lal who was Patwari those days. The said Ram Lal assured the applicant and some other land owners that he would get all the appeals filed through Shri S.C.Kapoor, Senior Advocate who was known to him. That the applicant alongwith some other land owners give all their papers to said Ram Lal for the purpose of filing the appeal in this Hon'ble Court. Necessary fee and charges were also given to said Ram Lal by the applicants and other land owners who handed over the papers to him. The details of the other land owners besides the applicant who gave papers to said Ram Lal is mentioned below:- Name of Land Owners LAC No. 1. Banwari Lal 55/96 2. Bosa Ram 24/96 3. Shub Ram 43/96 4. Moti Lal 11/96 That thereafter the applicant and also the other land owners had been asking said Ram Lal about status of their appeal. He had always been informing them that appeals in all RFA No.2950 of 2011 (O&M) 3 the cases had been filed and are lying admitted before this Hon'ble Court and will come up for hearing on their turn. Since the applicant had full faith upon said Ram Lal, he never tried to enquire about number of the appeal filed by him. That the applicant has also been able to get an affidavit of one of the land owners who gave the paper to said Ram Lal alongwith the present applicant. That it was only in the third week of December, 2010 that the applicant came to know from the other land owners in the village that the appeals filed by them have been decided by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 20.09.2010 passed in RF No.1692 of 2001 titled Moti Lal and others vs State of Haryana. The applicant also tried to contact Shri S.C.Kapoor, Sr. Advocate and came to know that he had already expired. On contacting Mr. Ashish Kapoor son of Shri S.C.Kapoor, Sr. Advocate the applicant came to know that no appeal on his behalf had been filed. However, the appeals on behalf of other land owners who had given papers to said Ram Lal were filed by the office of Shri S.C.Kapoor, Sr. Advocate and were decided by this Hon'ble Court on 20.9.2010. Thereafter the applicant tried to contact said Ram Lal to whom he had handed over all the papers alongwith other land owners but he came to know that said Ram Lal had also expired on 18.10.2010. A true translation of the death certificate of said Ram lal is attached herewith as Annexure A-1. That it was only thereafter that in the first week of February, 2011 the applicant contacted the undersigned counsel to file the present appeal. The undersigned counsel had advised him to contact other landowners alongwith whom he had handed over the papers to said Ram Lal and to get an affidavit from them. The applicant has been able to get affidavit of one Banwari Lal s/o Ghasi Ram wherein he had stated that applicant had given the papers with him and some other land owners to said Ram Lal for the purpose of filing the appeal. The affidavit of said Banwari Lal is attached herewith as Annexure A-2. That the present appeal is now being filed on 23.2.2011. RFA No.2950 of 2011 (O&M) 4 This is how delay of 3718 days has occurred in filing the present appeal. That the delay of 3718 days is bonafide and unintentional. As already mentioned the applicant had engaged the counsel to file the appeal. However, due to the reasons explained in the preceding paragraphs the appeal could not be filed.” As per the aforesaid averments, the appellant after the decision of the impugned award on 20.09.2000 were in touch with one Ram Lal- Patwari son of Kanhaiya Lal for filing appeal for enhancement of compensation who had assured the applicant and other landowners that he would get the appeals filed through Sh. S.C.Kapoor, Sr. Advocate who is known to him and the appellant alongwith other landowners gave necessary documents alongwith fee and other charges said Shri Ram Lal for the purpose of filing the appeal in this Court. It is further case of the appellant that thereafter, he was asking said Ram Lal about the status of his appeal and he was always informed that the appeal has been filed which is lying admitted in this Court and will come up for hearing on its turn and due to the full faith in Ram Lal-Patwari he never tried to enquire about his appeal and it was only in 3rd week of December, 2010 when RFA No.1692 of 2001 titled as Moti Lal and Others vs State of Haryana was decided on 20.9.2010; that he came to know that Sh. S.C.Kapoor, Sr. Advocate had already expired and from Sh. Ashish Kapoor son of Sh. S.C.Kapoor, Sr. Advocate he came to know that the appeal on behalf of the appellant has not been filed whereas other appeals on behalf of other landowners who had also handed over documents to Sh. Ram Lal were filed and got decided. Thereafter, appellant tried to contact said Ram Lal and came to know that he had expired on 18.10.2010 and RFA No.2950 of 2011 (O&M) 5 thereafter, he took the necessary steps to file the appeal. In this way the delay of 3718 days caused in filing this appeal is bonafide and unintentional and due to the reasons explained above, same is liable to be condoned. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, the averments as made in this application for condonation of delay are not supported by any document except one affidavit of one of the landowners who allegedly gave the papers to Sh. Ram Lal-Patwari alongwith applicant for filing of appeal. However, though an averment has been made that appellant has also contacted Sh. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate son of Sh. S.C.Kapoor, Sr. Advocate from whom he came to know that no appeal on behalf of appellant has been filed, however, no such affidavit of Sh. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate is forthcoming. Even the applicant has not mentioned as to whether Mr. Ashish Kapoor admitted having been handed over the documents pertaining to the appeal to be filed on his behalf from alleged Ram Lal-Patwari or not. It may be relevant to mention at this stage that more and more cases are coming up before this Court wherein such pleas are taken for condoning the delay with the plea that they had handed over the documents to an Advocate who has not filed the appeal on their behalf and had died. Such pleas have not been accepted by this Court in RFA No2950 of 2011. Moreover, it is not believable that the landowners whose land has been acquired and who is anxious to get his compensation enhanced will keep sitting at home for such a long period and without making any inquiries about the status of his case and will not contact his counsel during this long period and rely upon a person whose whereabouts are also not known to him. RFA No.2950 of 2011 (O&M) 6 Thus, the plea taken by the applicant is not acceptable to condone such a huge delay. It seems that the applicant who are satisfied with the compensation granted by the Reference Court have woken up to claim enhanced compensation after they came to know that appeals filed by other landowners have been accepted on 20.09.2010 and compensation in those appeals have been enhanced. In this view of the matter, application for condonation of delay is rejected. RFA No.2950 of 2011 Since the application for condonation of delay is rejected, this appeal is also dismissed being time barred. September 15, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) savita JUDGE