CM No.3946-47-CI of 2011 1 in/and RFA No.1627 of 2011(O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.3946-47-CI of 2011 in/and RFA No.1627 of 2011(O & M) Date of Decision:28.07.2011 Rajender Parshad & ors. ....appellants Versus The State of Haryana & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.P.R.Yadav, Advocate for Mr.Shailendra Jain, Advocate for the appellants *** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.(ORAL): CM No.3946-CI of 2011 Civil misc.application application is allowed subject to just exceptions. CM No.3947-CI of 2011 and RFA No.1627 of 2011 The present appeal has been filed after a delay of 516 days. Along with this appeal, an application for condonation of aforesaid delay has been filed. The averments made in this application read thus: That Shri S.K. Gupta, Advocate was the counsel for the appellants before the learned Civil Court. There was a huge chunk of land which was acquired vide the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 CM No.3946-47-CI of 2011 2 in/and RFA No.1627 of 2011(O & M) of the Land Acquisition Act, subject matter of the instant reference and the references arising out of the said notifications were consolidated together. Somehow, the instant case of the appellants was not consolidated with the said bunch inasmuch as there was a question of apportionment involved in the instant case. That when the instant reference was decided vide the impugned award dated 11.05.2009, learned counsel for the appellants in the Civil Court did not inform the appellants about the same. No intimation with regard to the same was ever sent to them. The appellants being persons living in the rural area situated in the District of Gurgaon and also being semi-literate and ignorant of their rights, were not aware of the intricacies of law. During the trial of the case, the appellants purely remained dependent upon the legal advice of their counsel. That in view of the facts, as stated herein above, the appellants could not file an appeal in this Hon'ble Court in time. In the third week of August, 2010, one of the appellants was told by one of the co- villager that in the matters regarding the acquisition the market value has been further enhanced by this Hon'ble Court recently. Thereafter, the appellants enquired from their learned counsel at Gurgaon and came to know about the decision of the instant matter vide the impugned award. The appellants got a certified copy of the said award applied for on 26.08.2010 which CM No.3946-47-CI of 2011 3 in/and RFA No.1627 of 2011(O & M) was supplied to them on 04.09.2010. The appellants thereafter visited Chandigarh and engaged a counsel and it took some time in getting the present appeal prepared. A perusal of the averments would show that the only ground taken by the applicant to condone the delay is that his counsel in the lower Court did not inform him regarding the decision of the Reference Court and thus he could not come to know the decision and file the appeal within time. It has also been prayed that the appellant is ignorant of his rights and was not aware of the intricacies of the law. It is well settled that ignorance of law is no excuse to condone the delay. So far as non supply of information by the Trial Court lawyer is concerned, it is suffice to say there is no evidence to show that it was obligatory on the part of the counsel representing the appellant in the lower Court to inform him about the decision of the case. From the averments made, it is very clear that the appellants remained negligent and casual in pursuing their remedy. It is well settled that premium can not be given to a person for his own wrongs. Thus, no ground can be made to condone such a huge delay of 516 days, in the instant case and therefore the prayer for condonation of delay is rejected. Since the application for condonation of delay is rejected, this appeal is also dismissed being time barred. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 28.07.2011 neenu