R.F.A. No. 5220 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 5220 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.11.2010 State of Haryana and another .. Appellants v. Smt. Bhagwani Devi and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate for Haryana Urban Development Authority. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 2556, 2571 to 2573 and 5220 of 2010, as common questions of law and facts are involved. The State is in appeal seeking reduction in the amount of compensation awarded to the land owners for the acquired land. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 5220 of 2010. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 6.7.1998, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana acquired 0.91 acres of land, situated within the revenue estate of village Basai, Tehsil and District Gurgaon for development and utilisation thereof as residential and commercial area of Sectors 9A and 10 at Gurgaon. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'), vide award dated 29.6.2001, assessed the market value @ ` 9,00,000/- per acre for Chahi land; ` 8,25,000/- per acre for Allabarani land and ` 10,00,000/- per acre for Banjar kind of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 317.90 per square yard. As far as merits of the case are concerned, I do not find any reason to R.F.A. No. 5220 of 2010 [2] interfere with the impugned award considering the fact that the learned court below had merely relied upon the judgment of this court in R.F.A. No. 1767 of 1995 –State of Haryana and another v. Om Parkash and others, decided on 25.7.1997 and determined the compensation while awarding increase @ 12% per annum for the time gap in two notifications. The land in the present was a small left out portion, otherwise big chunk of land was acquired earlier and the area in fact had already been developed during the intervening period. Not only this, there is no justifiable reason to condone huge delay of 306 days in filing the appeal. It is admitted that Law Department had issued necessary instructions for filing the appeal on 17.12.2008, which were received in the concerned office on 22.12.2008 and the limitation for filing the appeal was to expire on or about 6.1.2009, but still the appeal was filed in this court on 13.11.2009. The only reason mentioned is that the delay occurred on account of cumbersome procedure involved and administrative exigencies. As to what is the cumbersome procedure, has not been explained. The State cannot be permitted to lift words from an already decided case which in the context of the facts of a case may have been used for condoning the delay in a particular case. It is required to satisfactorily explain the reasons for condonation of delay, as each case depends on its own facts. As to why cumbersome procedure has been evolved for filing appeals, it is for the authorities to consider. It is none else than the authorities themselves who have devised such procedure. Further, there is a delay of 145 days in re-filing the appeal. The only ground mentioned is that due to administrative exigencies in removing the objections, the delay of 145 days occurred in re-filing the appeal. The only objections raised by the Registry at the time of return of appeal after the same was initially filed were: “1. Affidavit in support of exemption CM should be filed. 2. Memo of parties should be verified and corrected. 3. As to how appeal is within limitation ? 4. Date should be mentioned in the paper book. 5. Rupees should be mentioned in the certificate of stamp vendor. 6. Any other case. 7. Paper book should be page-marked.” The removal of objections was required within 40 days in terms of the time prescribed in the High Court Rules and Orders, which was enough, but still the State always considers it appropriate to sleep over the matter. R.F.A. No. 5220 of 2010 [3] Another fact on which this court would like to comment upon is that why an appeal was filed by the State without an application seeking condonation of delay in filing thereof, when it cannot be disputed that even to the knowledge of the authorities or the Advocate General's office, which is manned by an army of Law Officers, the appeal was beyond limitation. It is the least expected from the Advocate General's office that the cases, which are entrusted to it, are given due care without any delay and those are filed complete in all respects. The effort should not be just to throw incomplete files in the Registry, which are bound to return with objections. The reasons for which the appeal was returned could very well be taken care of even at the time of initial filing. Besides the appeal being without any merit, I do not find any reason to condone the delay in filing or re-filing of the appeal. Accordingly, the applications for condonation of delay in filing and re-filing and the appeal as well are dismissed. Regarding the conduct of HUDA, this court has given detailed reasons in R.F.A. No. 2125 of 2010 –State of Haryana and another v. Gram Panchayat of village Jharsa and another, decided on 15.11.2010, which shall be read as part of this order as well. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 15.11.2010 mk