RFA No.2885 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.2885 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:14.11.2011 Kamlesh Rani ....Appellant Versus State of Haryana and another ....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. J.S.Hooda, Advocate for the appellant. * * * RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) C.M.No.16111-CI of 2011 Civil miscellaneous application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. RFA No.2885 of 2011 (O&M) This is landowner's appeal challenging the award of the Reference Court dated 21.12.2009 on the ground that market value of the acquired land in question has been determined at a lower rate. There is a delay of 324 days in filing the instant appeal. Alongwith this appeal, an application for condoning the aforesaid delay has been filed wherein it is stated that the appellant had engaged a counsel to file an appeal against the award of the Reference Court. However, later on, she came to know that the said counsel has not filed any appeal on her behalf and thereafter, she RFA No.2885 of 2011 (O&M) 2 engaged the present counsel and filed the appeal through him. Noticing the aforesaid contention and finding that averments made in the application were vague as appellant has failed to disclose the name of the counsel engaged by her previously, on 14.09.2011, the following order was passed by this Court:- “It has been mentioned in the application for condonation of delay that appellant had engaged a counsel to file an appeal against the award of the Reference Court. However, later on, she came to know that the said counsel has not filed any appeal on her behalf. However, the appellant has not mentioned the name of such counsel. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the appellant seeks a short adjournment to enable him to file affidavit of the appellant in this regard. List on 22.09.2011.” In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the appellant has placed on record an affidavit dated 12.10.2011 which reads thus:- “Affidavit of Kamlesh Rani, d/o Moli Ram, r/o H.No.1057, Sector 19, Panchkula. I the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as follows: 1 That the applicant/appellant has filed aforementioned appeal which is most likely to succeed on the basis of the grounds mentioned therein. 2. That appellant is impugning the award dated 21.12.2009 on the point of quantum of compensation being on the lower side. 3. That number of land owners of the land comprised in the said revenue estate were effected by the said acquisition award and they all joined together and filed reference petitions u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act RFA No.2885 of 2011 (O&M) 3 through different counsel. 4. That appellant also engaged a counsel at the court below for the same who pursued the reference petition. After decision of the said petition on 21.12.2009, the counsel at the court below suggested the appellant and alike persons to file RFA at High Court Chandigarh for the enhancement. The appellant was told that her appeal would be filed alongwith other interested persons. 5. That now, in the month of December, 2010, the appellant came to know that an RFA bearing No.1674 of 2010 was filed by State of Haryana, wherein she has been arrayed as respondent. Then she enquired the said counsel at court below regarding the fate of her RFA, however, the said counsel could not give her satisfactory reply. 6. That accordingly, appellant contacted the present counsel on 16.12.2010 and sought his assistance in the matter. On 19.12.2010, the present counsel was told by the concerned branch that no RFA has been filed in the name of appellant, there is only RFA filed by State of Haryana against her, which is pending adjudication. 7. That now, appellant has come to know that other claimants had already filed appeal against the impugned judgment, which are pending adjudication before Hon'ble High Court. 8. That thereafter, appellant contacted the counsel at court below and reasoned with him. Said counsel apologized for inadvertent lapse on his behalf and returned the amount to appellant taken by him as expenses. He also helped her in collecting relevant documents at his own cost and supplied the same to her. RFA No.2885 of 2011 (O&M) 4 9. That thereafter, appellant delivered all the documents to the present counsel on 21.01.2011. 10.That it is humbly submitted that delay has occurred in filing the present appeal, which is neither intentional nor deliberate. Appellant is not gaining any thing by filing the appeal after delay.” A perusal of the aforesaid affidavit would show that though the appellant is in contact of the lawyer previously engaged by her. But appellant is not forthcoming to disclose the name of the counsel in compliance of the orders passed by this Court. Thus, the ground stated in the application by the appellant for condoning the delay does not inspire confidence of the Court. It appears that the appellant has concocted the story to get the delay condoned on a false ground. Thus, this Court finds no sufficient reasons to condone the aforesaid delay. Prayer for condoning the delay is rejected. Consequently, the appeal which is time barred is also dismissed. No other application survive. November 14, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) savita JUDGE