IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM Nos.3938-39-CI of 2011 and RFA No.1621 of 2011 Date of decision: 28.11.2011 Raj Pal son of Chandgi Ram ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr.H.N. Sahu, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Manish Bansal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana and Mr. Amandeep Singh, AAG, Haryana. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) This is landowner's appeal challenging the impugned award of the Reference Court on the ground that compensation awarded is inadequate. There is a delay of 9 years and 23 days in filing this appeal. The aforesaid huge delay has been sought to be condoned on the following averments: “That it is appropriate to mention here that the applicant was serving in the Indian Army and he was not made aware about the decision of the reference by the counsel who attended the reference before the Ld. ADJ, Sonepat. The applicant retired from the Indian Army on 30 June 2009. After settling his house at his native place, the applicant came to know from his friend Om Parkash son of Lal Singh that the reference has already been decided. Thereafter, the applicant alongwith his friend approached to the counsel who attended his reference and found that the reference was decided long back on 20.9.2000. But the counsel failed to supply the copy of order as well as brief of the applicant.” The averments made in the application are not supported by any material on record. Even name of the counsel, who was engaged by the appellant, is not forthcoming. Not only this, admittedly the applicant was serving in the Indian Army and he knew about the filing of his reference application, still he did not thought it appropriate to ask the status of his case from his counsel even by writing a letter in these 10 long years. Even the affidavit of the friend, who has accompanied him, to the counsel is not placed on record along with his application. Admittedly, similar appeals arising out of the same acquisition have already been decided by this Court. It seems that the appellant has woken up to claim higher compensation after such a long delay. The cause shown is not bona fide and sufficient, to condone such a huge delay. Thus, the prayer to condone the delay is rejected. Since the prayer in the application for condonation of delay has not been accepted, this appeal is also dismissed being time barred. November 28, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE