R.F.A. No. 4407 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 4407 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.10.2010 The State of Haryana and another .. Appellants v. O. P. Tiwari ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. ... Rajesh Bindal J. On 4.10.2010, this court passed the following order: “In terms of the order passed by this court on 1.10.2010, Mr. Arvind Malhan, Land Acquisition Officer, Faridabad has appeared in person. He submitted that the communication earlier sent by Advocate General's office was not received by him and on account of that fact, he could not respond to the query. On the asking of the court, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that communication regarding the earlier order passed on 16.9.2010 was sent by ordinary post. As far as status of RFA No. 3502 of 1998, decided on 26.8.1999, which has been relied upon by the learned court below while determining the amount of compensation for the acquired land, the submission was that LPA No. 1653 of 2001 filed against the aforesaid judgment was dismissed by this court on 3.3.2005 and the same attained finality as the matter was not taken to Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Meaning thereby that appeal was filed impugning the award of the learned court below, which is based on the judgment of this court which had already been accepted by the State. Learned counsel for the State is directed to file an affidavit as to who opined this case to be fit for filing appeal before this court without mentioning the particulars about the earlier judgment of this court R.F.A. No. 4407 of 2010 [2] which was relied upon and who ultimately approved and filed the same. Apparently, no one thought of applying the mind to find out the status of the judgment relied upon by the learned court below. The amount spent by the State in the avoidable frivolous litigation be also furnished.” In terms of the order passed, affidavit of Mr. Arvind Malhan, Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Haryana has been filed in court today. Challenge in the appeal is to the award of the learned court below determining the compensation for the land acquired vide notification dated 23.11.1992. Relying upon a judgment of this Court in Ram Dia v. State of Haryana, 1994(2) Latest Judicial Reports 655, the amount of compensation was determined. In the aforesaid judgment, bunch of appeals arising out of the same acquisition had been decided with regard to valuation of the land. The case in hand was one of the isolated case which was filed late. Along with the appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 269 days in filing the appeal has also been filed. One of the objections raised by the State before the Reference Court was that the petition was beyond limitation. The issue was decided in favour of the land owner by the learned court below specifically recording that no evidence was led by the State in rebuttal by producing any record to show that either the respondent-land owner was present at the time of announcement of award before the Collector or the award was ever communicated to him after it was announced. In the light of the aforesaid facts, it was opined by the learned court below that the petition filed by the land owner was within limitation. In spite of the fact that the value of acquired land had been determined by the learned court below relying upon the judgment of this court pertaining to the same acquisition against which even L.P.A. No. 1653 of 2001 -- State of Haryana and others v. Attar Singh, had also been dismissed on 3.3.2005 and further even the issue of limitation had also been decided against the State on the basis of evidence on record, still the present appeal was opined to be fit for filing in this court merely stating that the issue of limitation was decided wrongly. In the affidavit of Land Acquisition Collector filed in court today, it is specifically mentioned that against the judgment of this Court in Attar Singh's case (supra), no Special Leave Petition was filed before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Meaning thereby that the judgment in Attar Singh's case (supra) attained finality as far as quantum of compensation is concerned. Nothing has been pointed out before me by learned counsel for the State that there is any material on record with the R.F.A. No. 4407 of 2010 [3] Collector, which may not have been produced before the Court, which could show that either the land owner was present when the award was pronounced or the award was ever communicated to him thereafter. Once there was no material before the authorities to rebut the finding recorded by the learned court below regarding the petition being within limitation, the opinion merely stating that the issue of limitation has been wrongly decided is totally without application of mind, not only at the initial stage but at all subsequent stages. From the aforesaid facts, it can be opined that it was a frivolous litigation which could be avoided, but as is generally seen no one in the State is taking responsibility to go through the judgments of the court below before filing appeals in this court and a lot of frivolous appeals are filed. In the affidavit, it has been mentioned that in pursuing the litigation in this court, the State has spent ` 13,554/-. It does not mention as to how much is the value of the services provided by the Advocate General's office. While dismissing the appeal being totally mis-conceived, it is directed that the amount spent by the State on this avoidable frivolous litigation including the value of services provided by the Advocate General's office, be recovered from the guilty officers/officials after due opportunity of hearing to them. The present appeal is dismissed with costs of ` 10,000/-. The amount of cost be also recovered from the guilty official/officer. The amount of cost be deposited with High Court Legal Services Committee within 30 days of receipt of copy of the order. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 15.10.2010 mk (Refer to Reporter)