RFA Nos.2456 to 2459 & 3015 to 3027 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.6930-CI of 2011 in/and RFA No.3015 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision : 19.08.2011 State of Punjab through Land Acquisition Collector, Punjab ....Petitioner Versus Baldev Singh and others ....Respondent C.M.No.6933-CI of 2011 in/and RFA No.3016 of 2011 State of Punjab through Land Acquisition Collector, Punjab ....Petitioner Versus Mehar Singh and others ....Respondents C.M.No.6936-CI of 2011 in/and RFA No.3017 of 2011 State of Punjab through Land Acquisition Collector, Punjab ....Petitioner Versus Inder Singh and others ....Respondents C.M.No.6939-CI of 2011 in/and RFA No.3018 of 2011 State of Punjab through Land Acquisition Collector, Punjab ....Petitioner Versus Sohan Singh and others ....Respondents C.M.No.6942-CI of 2011 in/and RFA No.3019 of 2011 State of Punjab through Land Acquisition Collector, Punjab ....Petitioner Versus Mohinder Singh and another ....Respondents C.M.No.6945-CI of 2011 in/and RFA No.3020 of 2011 State of Punjab through Land Acquisition Collector, Punjab ....Petitioner Versus Devki and others ....Respondents RFA Nos.2456 to 2459 & 3015 to 3027 of 2011 2 C.M.No.6948-CI of 2011 in/and RFA No.3021 of 2011 State of Punjab through Land Acquisition Collector, Punjab ....Petitioner Versus Basdev and another ....Respondents C.M.No.6951-CI of 2011 in/and RFA No.3022 of 2011 State of Punjab through Land Acquisition Collector, Punjab ....Petitioner Versus Rajinder Singh ....Respondent C.M.No.6954-CI of 2011 in/and RFA No.3023 of 2011 State of Punjab through Land Acquisition Collector, Punjab ....Petitioner Versus Mohinder Kaur wd/o Tarlok Singh ....Respondent C.M.No.6957-CI of 2011 in/and RFA No.3024 of 2011 State of Punjab through Land Acquisition Collector, Punjab ....Petitioner Versus Nirmal Singh and another ....Respondents C.M.No.6960-CI of 2011 in/and RFA No.3025 of 2011 State of Punjab through Land Acquisition Collector, Punjab ....Petitioner Versus Kasam Singh and another ....Respondents C.M.No.6963-CI of 2011 in/and RFA No.3026 of 2011 State of Punjab through Land Acquisition Collector, Punjab ....Petitioner Versus Amrik Singh and another ....Respondents C.M.No.6966-CI of 2011 in/and RFA No.3027 of 2011 State of Punjab through Land Acquisition Collector, Punjab ...Petitioner Versus Dara Singh ....Respondent RFA Nos.2456 to 2459 & 3015 to 3027 of 2011 3 C.M.No.6054-CI of 2011 in/and RFA No.2456 of 2011 State of Punjab through Land Acquisition Collector, Punjab ....Petitioner Versus Baldev Singh and another ....Respondents C.M.No.6057-CI of 2011 in/and RFA No.2457 of 2011 State of Punjab through Land Acquisition Collector, Punjab ....Petitioner Versus Dayal Singh and others ....Respondents C.M.No.6060-CI of 2011 in/and RFA No.2458 of 2011 State of Punjab through Land Acquisition Collector, Punjab ....Petitioner Versus Amrik Singh and others ....Respondents C.M.No.6063-CI of 2011 in/and RFA No.2459 of 2011 State of Punjab through Land Acquisition Collector, Punjab ....Petitioner Versus Bachan Singh 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. Sandeep Mudgil, Advocate for applicant/appellant. * * * RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) Vide impugned award dated 06.11.2008, references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, filed on behalf of the land owners/respondents for determination of the market value of the acquired land were decided and it was held that the land owners/claimants were entitled to compensation @ Rs.15,60,900/- along with statutory benefits. RFA Nos.2456 to 2459 & 3015 to 3027 of 2011 4 These appeals have been filed to challenge the aforesaid Award on the ground that compensation awarded is on the Higher Side. There is a delay of 832 days in filing of these appeals. Separate applications have been filed to condone the aforesaid delay in all these appeals. However, verbatim averments have been made in these applications for condoning the delay. The relevant averments made in these applications for the purpose of making out a sufficient cause for condoning the aforesaid delay reads thus:- “That after the decision of the Civil Appeal dated 6.11.2008, certified copy of the judgment was applied by the concerned District Attorney on 5.3.2010, which was prepared 8.3.2010, and was delivered on 13.3.2010, hence limitation was available upto 03.02.2009. That the office of the Director Prosecution and Litigation, Punjab, Chandigarh after examining the case opined the same to be fit one for filing appeal and vide his memo No.2594/C.O. 18(99)10 dated 4.8.2010 conveyed his opinion and brief to the Executive Engineer, Construction Division, PWD (B&R), Ropar. That the Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of PWD (B&R), Punjab, Chandigarh accorded the necessary government sanction vide No.6/206/10-1BR3/560 dated 15.2.2011. That the deponent submitted the relevant records along with sanction to the office of Advocate General Punjab Chandigarh on 21.02.2011. That the office of Advocate General Punjab, Chandigarh processed, prepared and filed the appeal on 17.05.2011.” A perusal of the aforesaid averments would show that in spite of fact that the judgment was pronounced on 06.11.2008 by the Reference RFA Nos.2456 to 2459 & 3015 to 3027 of 2011 5 Court yet certified copy was applied only on 05.03.2010 by the District Attorney. However, no explanation is forthcoming as to what were the reasons for which the District Attorney could not have applied the certified copy in time. Neither it is coming on record that the Appellant-State has called any explanation of the said officer in this regard. Not only this, office of the Director Prosecution and Litigation, Punjab, Chandigarh has not mentioned that when the case was sent to the office of the Director Prosecution and Litigation, Punjab, Chandigarh for its opinion. It has been mentioned that the opinion was conveyed by the Director Prosecution and Litigation, Punjab, Chandigarh only on 04.08.2010. It may also be noticed that in spite of the fact that the Director Prosecution and Litigation, Punjab, Chandigarh had given its opinion vide office memo on 04.08.2010, Head of the Department accorded the Government sanction on 15.02.2011. There is absolutely no explanation as to why the period of six months was taken for granting the sanction. In view of the aforesaid facts, the delay has not been explained. Neither any sufficient-cause has been shown for causing such delay. Since, the appellant has failed to explain the delay in filing this appeal and that no sufficient cause has been shown, I find no reason to condone the said delay. Thus, prayer for condoning the delay in filing theses appeals is rejected. RFA Nos.2456 to 2459 & 3015 to 3027 of 2011 Since the applications for condonation of delay have been rejected. The appeals are also ordered to be dismissed being time barred. 19.08.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) savita Judge