IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.8149-CI of 2011 and RFA No.3705 of 2011 Date of decision: 17.10.2011 Mrs. Ved Kumari ......Appellant(s) Versus The State of Haryana and another ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: None. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) The landowner by way of instant appeal challenged the impugned award of Reference Court on the ground that market value determined by the Reference Court is on the lower side and she is entitled to the enhancement of compensation. This appeal is time barred and has been filed after a delay of 8 years 9 months and 16 days. Along with this appeal, an application for condonation of aforesaid delay has been filed. The averments made in support of the application for condonation of delay read thus: “That there is the delay of 8 years 9 months and 16 days in the filing of this appeal in this Hon'ble Court. That the delay in filing of the appeal is entirely inadvertent as the appellant had engaged a counsel by the name of Sh. Rampat Dahiya Advocate in the Hon'ble High Court in the month of June 2002 for the filing of the above said Regular First Appeal and had duly executed the vakalatnama after the payment of fees to him. That the appellant had for all practical purposes left the filing of the above said appeal in the hands of the above said counsel and were under the impression that the same has been filed. The appellant did not make any endeavour about the proof of actual filing of the appeal as they were told by the counsel that the appeal will come up for final hearing after not less than 10 years. That the appellant acquired the knowledge of the decision of Atam Parkash's case (RFA No.1718 of 2001 decided on 24.9.2007) from similarly situated land owners in the month of June 2008 and then started making enquiries about the fate of their appeals in the Hon'ble High Court. That after making futile attempts to contact the above said counsel, in the month of December 2009 the appellant came to find out from reliable sources that the said counsel had in fact left the legal practice at the Hon'ble High Court and had shifted to Sonepat. That thereafter the appellant was able to contact the said counsel at Sonepat and gathered the file of their case from the said counsel the month of December 2010 and started the exercise for filing of the present appeal. Therefore, the appellant is victims of circumstances and are not themselves responsible in any manner for the delay that has been caused in the filing of the present appeal as the same has been caused due to a mistake or lack communication on the part of their counsel. Therefore, the appellant has a genuine and bonafide reason for allowing the condonation of delay in filing of the present appeal in this Hon'ble High Court.” A perusal of the averments made in this application would show that the appellant was totally negligent and callous in pursuing her remedy. According to her own showing, she never bothered to check the status of her appeal and has woken up from a slumber only after a lapse of more than 8 years when she found out that appeals filed by the other claimants/landowners have been decided. It has also not shown that whether the appellant had taken any action against the aforesaid counsel to whom she had handed over the documents for filing of the appeal and as per the allegation has not filed the said appeal. Moreover, it is not believable that the land-owners whose land has been acquired and who are seeking enhancement of compensation will not enquire about the status of their case for a long period of 8 or 9 years. Prima facie, plea for condonation of delay has been concocted only for making a ground to condone such a huge delay after this Court had decided the other appeals in favour of the claimants. It is well settled that litigant cannot be given premium for his/her own faults. Thus, the plea raised by the appellant to condone such a huge delay of 8 years 9 months and 16 days is not accepted. Similar explanations to condone the delay have not been accepted by this Court in RFA No.2693 of 2011 titled as “Mrs. Ved Kumari and others versus State of Haryana and another”, decided on 7.9.2011. Thus, for the reasons recorded as aforesaid and the reasons recorded in RFA No.2693 of 2011, I find no ground to condone such a huge delay. Prayer in the application for condonation of delay is accordingly rejected. Since the application for condonation of delay itself has been dismissed, the instant appeal is also dismissed being barred by time. October 17, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE