CM No.4104 to 4106-CI of 2011 and RFA No.1737 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.4104 to 4106-CI of 2011 and RFA No.1737 of 2011 Date of Decision:8.08.2011 Malti Devi and others ....appellants Versus The State of Haryana & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.Pritam Saini, Advocate for for the appellants *** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.(ORAL): The present appeal has been filed after a delay of 4129 days. Along with this appeal, an application for condonation of aforesaid delay has been filed. The averments made in this application read thus: “2. That though the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra decided the reference application submitted by the appellants (petitioners in reference) on 3.6.1999 yet they were not aware about the decision referred by the learned reference Court. This fact is further clear as the appellants have not filed any execution before the learned reference Court after the decision of their reference petition by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra on 3.6.1999. 3. That the regular first appeals filed by the CM No.4104 to 4106-CI of 2011 and RFA No.1737 of 2011 2 claimants/ landowners came up for hearing before this Hon'ble Court on 9.11.2010 when the appeals filed by the other claimants were decided. After the decision of the appeals filed by the other claimants, the appellants also made inquiry that as to why their case has not been decided by the learned reference Court. Then, it transpired that the case of the appellants was also decided on 3.6.1999 along with other reference petitions. Thus, the appellants came to know about the decision of the reference petition when the appeals were decided by this Hon'ble Court on 9.11.2010. After decision of the regular first appeals by this Hon'ble Court, the appellants made inquiry from the counsel in the trial Court who informed that their reference petition was also decided along with other connected references and intimation thereof was also sent to them but nobody had turned up even to file the execution for claiming enhanced compensation awarded by the learned reference Court. Thereafter, the file was inspected in the District Courts when it transpired that the file of this case has already been sent to this Hon'ble Court along with connected cases. 3. That after making inquiry from this Hon'ble Court as well as in the trial Court, application for obtaining certified copy of the order dated 3.6.1999 was submitted on 16.12.2010 and on that very day the copy was prepared. 4. That on receiving the certified copy of the order CM No.4104 to 4106-CI of 2011 and RFA No.1737 of 2011 3 dated 3.6.1999, the appellants contacted the undersigned counsel for filing the appeal. It may be pertinent to mention here that after obtaining certified copy of the order, it transpired that legal representatives of Kishan Chand have already been impleaded in the case and the appellants can file the appeal before this Hon'ble Court. However, during the pendency of claim petition, one of the claimants, Ranjit Singh who was in fact dealing with the cases before the trial Court, also expired. After his death, the appellants did not visit the counsel in the trial court. That is how, the appellants could not know about the decision rendered by the reference Court. 5. That though there is an ordinate delay of 4129 days in filing the appeal, yet the appellants are claiming compensation as has already been determined by this Hon'ble Court as the land of the appellants has also been taken away by the Government. Thus, if the delay in filing the appeal is condoned, the appellants would get the enhanced compensation only. 6. That the delay in filing the appeal is not intentional or deliberate. The appellants were not aware about the decision rendered by the learned reference Court. They were not also aware of the fact that appeals have been filed by the other claimants in this Hon'ble Court. It is only after the decision of the regular first appeals on 9.11.2010 that the appellants CM No.4104 to 4106-CI of 2011 and RFA No.1737 of 2011 4 came to know that their land was also acquired along with the land of other landlowners. On inquiry, it transpired that reference petition filed by the appellants had already been decided on 3.6.1999 along with other reference petitions. Thus, the appellants are craving indulgence of this Hon'ble Court that the delay of 4129 days in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned so that they could get the fair compensation already determined by this Hon'ble Court. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this application may be allowed and delay of 4129 days in filing the appeal condoned in the interest of justice. A perusal of the averments would show that the ground taken by the applicant to condole the delay is that they were not aware of the decision of the Reference Court and they came to know about the aforesaid decision on 9.11.2010 when the appeals filed by the other claimants decided by this Court and then they made inquiries from the counsel in the trial Court who informed that their reference petitions were also decided along with other reference applications vide impugned order dated 3.6.1999. However, the aforesaid ground taken by the appellant cannot be accepted in view of the fact that admittedly, as per their own inquiry, the lawyer of the trial Court had sent them the intimation. It is the further case of the applicants that in fact Ranjit Singh, one of the claimants, had died during the pendency of the reference application who was dealing with the case and after this death, they did not visit the counsel in the trial Court. From the aforesaid stand taken, it is crystal clear that the CM No.4104 to 4106-CI of 2011 and RFA No.1737 of 2011 5 applicants pursued their remedy in a negligent and casual manner. It is not believable that a land owner whose land has been acquired will not inquire about his case for determination of compensation for 11 long years. It is well settled that premium cannot be given to a person for his own wrongs. Thus, no ground is made out to condone such a huge delay of 4129 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. August 8, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE