IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.4009-CI of 2011 in/and RFA No.1670 of 2011(O & M) Date of Decision:28.07.2011 Bajaj & Company(Pvt.)Ltd. ....appellant Versus The State of Haryana through Collector & 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.Naveen S.Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant *** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.(ORAL): Bajaj & Company Pvt.Limited having its registered office at B/104, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi has filed the instant appeal challenging the impugned award dated 25.05.2006 passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the reference Court, Gurgaon on the ground of inadequate compensation. This appeal has been filed in this Court after a delay of 1574 days. Along with this appeal, application for condonation of delay has also been filed. The averments made in this application read thus: That the applicant-appellant is owner of the land described in the petition and after the land had been acquired, the petitioner filed the Reference Petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, on account of having CM No.4009-CI of 2011 2 in/and RFA No.1670 of 2011(O & M) suffered a big jot in business, the applicant- appellant had to move out of Delhi and shift to Guhati in Assam where the applicant-appellant started business under the name and style of M/s Bajaj Engineering Company, FA Road, Kumarpara, Guhati (Assam). The applicant- appellant thus could not keep a follow up of the petition with the Advocate and deputed a person to care of the matter. Initially, the petitioner enquired about his case after the institution of reference in the month of December 2000. The matter was adjourned on various occasions and eventually the written statement on behalf of respondent No. 2 was filed on 01.10.2003, nearly after 3 years of filing the reference petition. The written statement on behalf of respondent No. 3 was filed on 15.01.2004. The replication to the written statement was filed on 01.03.2004. Hence, it took nearly 3 years and 3 months to complete the pleadings. The applicant-appellant was informed by the counsel that as and when anything would be required to be carried out at the ends of the applicant-appellant, the applicant- appellant shall be informed. The applicant- appellant was, however, not informed about the date of hearing and the applicant-appellant being unaware of the procedures, believed the information that was conveyed to the applicant- CM No.4009-CI of 2011 3 in/and RFA No.1670 of 2011(O & M) appellant. That whenever the applicant-appellant sought information as regards the date, the applicant-appellant was informed that the matter is pending. That during the year 2004-2005, the wife of the applicant-appellant developed serious problems and had to be admitted in the hospital. The applicant-appellant was also hospitalized for cardiac problems and he had to undergo surgery. The business of the applicant-appellant was also not carrying out well adding to the miseries of the applicant and causing greater tension and depression to the applicant-appellant. That owing to the ill-health of the applicant-appellant as well as his wife, there was a tremendous pressure upon the applicant- appellant to marry off his daughter Kavita immediately lest any mis-happening occurs to the applicant-appellant. Consequently, the marriage was fixed by the applicant-appellant in a great hurry in April 2005. Thus, during all this while when the matter was listed for evidence, applicant-appellant was under-constant trouble. Social, economic as well as personal problems left no options for the applicant-appellant to follow up the matter and the case that was pending before the court. Resultantly, the applicant- CM No.4009-CI of 2011 4 in/and RFA No.1670 of 2011(O & M) appellant failed to keep a track of the matter and presumed that as and when anything shall be required to be done at the ends of the applicant- appellant, the counsel shall inform the applicant- appellant, however, no such information was received. That even the person who was deputed by the applicant-appellant to take care of the matter failed to intimate the applicant-appellant about any development in the matter. The applicant-appellant was always under a bona fide impression that the case was being deftly handled and not keep a track. The applicant-appellant recovered partially from his health and is better now. He then made enquiry about the matter and was shocked to learn that the reference petition has been dismissed. The applicant-appellant contacted his lawyer and after obtaining the requisite papers, the applicant-appellant came to Chandigarh to file case in the Hon'ble High Court in the month of September 2006 and engaged an Advocate to file an appeal. The applicant- appellant engaged Sh. Navdeep Singh, Advocate for the purposes of filing the appeal. That the applicant-appellant tried to take status of the case from the counsel from Guhati and was informed that the appeal had been filed. That after November/December, 2006, CM No.4009-CI of 2011 5 in/and RFA No.1670 of 2011(O & M) the applicant-appellant could not keep contact with his Advocate and whenever he called up, the landline number would not be answered while the mobile was switched off, eventually the landline was also stated to be out of use. The applicant- appellant wrote certain letters at the office address of the counsel i.e. House No. 92, Top Floor, Sector 18, Chandigarh. That when no one respond to the phone calls as well as the letters, the applicant-appellant tried to ascertain the status and contacted other Advocate to ascertain whether appeal had been filed or not. It then transpired in the month of May 2010 that no appeal had been filed. The applicant-appellant then tried to ascertain contact with the Advocate and was informed that he has left practice and is no more in India. That the applicant-appellant tried to obtain original papers given, from the office of Advocate but the person deputed by the applicant-appellant informed that the office was locked and the premises were not operational. That the applicant-appellant thus went to Gurgaon in September 2010 and applied for fresh certified copy of the order and also got the Xerox photocopy of the reference petition. He then engaged Shri Naveen S. Bhardwaj, Advocate in the month of October, 2010. The Advocate CM No.4009-CI of 2011 6 in/and RFA No.1670 of 2011(O & M) called upon the applicant-appellant to supply the necessary documents pertaining to the operation of the applicant-appellant to explain the delay. The applicant-appellant tried to search for the same, however, the documents being nearly six years old could not be traced. The applicant- appellant informed about his inability to supply the documents to his counsel. The instant application is thus being filed without any further delay alongwith the instant appeal. From the perusal of the aforesaid averments, it is made out that plea has been raised by the appellant that decision of the reference Court was not to its knowledge since the applicant has shifted to Assam and therefore could not pursue the proceedings before the reference Court. It has been also averred that counsel representing him in the reference court had assured him that whenever the appellant will be required, he shall inform him. However, the aforesaid lawyer failed to convey him the decision of the reference Court. The appellant has also listed some personal problems regarding the ill-health of his wife, daughter and himself because of which he could not keep track of the matter. It has been further averred that when he partially recovered from his health he made enquiries and came to know about the dismissal of the reference application. Thereafter, he engaged a lawyer at Chandigarh in the month of September 2006 to file an appeal. Thereafter, again he could not keep track of the case and contact his lawyer and it transpired to him in the month of December 2010, that no appeal has been filed on his behalf and thereafter he took steps to file an appeal without any further delay and thus CM No.4009-CI of 2011 7 in/and RFA No.1670 of 2011(O & M) there was sufficient reason for not filing the appeal within limitation. Plea as set up by the appellant seems to be false from the record, itself. Admittedly, appellant before this Court is a registered Company having its office at Maharani Bagh, New Delhi. Even in the affidavit in support of the said application, the said address is given by the Director, Sushil Kumar Bajaj. The minimum requirement of incorporation of a company under the Companies Act is two persons. It is not coming on the record as to who was/who were the other directors and for what reasons any other director or the official of the said Company could not pursue the proceedings. Moreover, the affidavit in support of this application has been verified on the basis of personal information of its Director Sushil Kumar Bajaj, whereas the same could have been verified only from the record of the Company. Not only this as per appellant's own version, after coming from Guhati he engaged a counsel in September 2006 to file the appeal but again lost track of the case and thereafter made inquiries only in December 2010. In spite of the fact that earlier also his counsel had not informed him after the decision of reference under Section 18 of the Act, he has not made any effort to find out about the filing of appeal from his counsel after September 2006, Thus, the appellant was grossly negligent in pursuing the litigation and cannot be given premium for his own inaction. Thus, the plea taken by the appellant is rejected. Prayer for condonation of delay is rejected. Since the application for condonation of delay has been rejected, the instant appeal is also dismissed, being time barred. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 28.07.2011 neenu