C.M.No.4726-CI of 2010 and RFA No.1823 of 2010 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. C.M.No.4726-CI of 2010 and RFA No.1823 of 2010 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.10.2011 Vijay and others Applicant-appellants vs The State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr.Shailendra Jain, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant. -- Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. (Oral) This is claimants' appeal challenging the impugned award of the Reference Court on the ground of inadequacy of compensation. There is a delay of 1386 days in filing this appeal. As per the averments made in the application for condonation of delay, the applicants were not informed by their counsel who was representing them before the Reference Court and they could not come to know earlier and only when after the decision of their execution application in the first week of February 2009, when appeals filed before this Court by the the landowners, they came to know about filing of the appeal and thereafter, the applicants inquired from their counsel about their rights to file the appeal and, thus, there are sufficient grounds to condone the said delay. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants this Court is of C.M.No.4726-CI of 2010 and RFA No.1823 of 2010 of 2010 (O&M) 2 the view that the applicants have failed to give sufficient reasons to explain the delay caused in filing the appeal. The plea taken by them that after the decision of the appeal, they were not informed by their counsel who was representing them before the Reference Court and, thus, could come to know only when appeals filed before this Court by other landowners cannot be accepted. No such evidence is forthcoming in support of the plea as taken by the applicant-appellants. Even otherwise the applicant-appellants have not shown that it was obligatory upon their counsel to inform them. In fact it is the litigant who is to remain vigilant about his remedy. From the aforesaid averments itself, it is clearly made out that the appellants remained negligent and casual in their approach to pursue their legal remedy for determination of compensation of the acquired land. It is not believable that a landowner whose land has been acquired and who desperately needs the compensation for his acquired land will not inquire about the status of his case for years together. However, it is strange that when the land references were decided by the Reference Court of other villages along with their reference application, they never came to know about the decision of the Reference Court. Somewhat similar explanation was not accepted for condoning the delay by this Court in Sat Parkash vs. Land acquisition Collector, RFA No.4209 of 2010 decided on 14.9.2011. Thus, I find that there are no sufficient grounds to condone such a huge delay. Since the appeal has been held to be time barred and the prayer for condonation of delay has not been accepted, the main appeal and other applications do not survive. C.M.No.4726-CI of 2010 and RFA No.1823 of 2010 of 2010 (O&M) 3 Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed being time barred. ( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge October 20, 2011 rk