RFA No.4209 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. C.M.No.10404-CI of 2010 and RFA No.4209 of 2010 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.9.2011 Sat Parkash ...Appellant vs Land Acquisition Collector and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr.Shailendra Jain, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant. Mr.Ashish Gupta, AAG Haryana for the State. -- Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. C.M.No.10404-CI of 2010 Allowed subject to just exceptions. RFA No.4209 of 2010 This appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellant on 24.12.2009, against the award of the Reference Court dated 12.10.2002. This appeal has been filed by the claimant-landowner for further enhancement of compensation. Along with the appeal, an appeal i.e.C.M.No.10405-CI of 2010 has been filed for condonation of delay of 2540 days in filing this appeal. As per the averments made in the application for condonation of delay, the Reference Court had passed the impugned award on 12.10.2002. However, the appellant was not informed by his counsel who was representing him before the Reference Court and he could not come to know earlier and only when appeals filed before this Court by the other RFA No.4209 of 2010 (O&M) 2 landowners were decided in November 2009, and then appellant/applicant inquired about Mr.S.S.Yadav, Advocate, and came to know that he had left the profession, immediately, after passing of the award dated 12.10.2002 and on further inquiry he came to know that his appeal was never filed. It has been averred in this application that appellant was not aware of his legal rights and, thus, there are sufficient grounds in condoning the said delay. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant-appellant this Court is of the view that the applicant has failed to give sufficient reasons to explain the delay caused in filing this appeal. The plea taken by him that after the impugned award was passed on 12.10.2002, and he was not informed by his counsel who was representing him before the Reference Court and thus he could come to know only when appeals filed before this Court by other landowners in November 2009, cannot be accepted. No such evidence is forthcoming in support of the plea as taken by the applicant- appellant. Even otherwise, the appellant has not shown that it was obligatory upon his counsel to inform him. In fact it is the litigant who is to remain vigilant about persuing his remedy. From the aforesaid averments itself, it is clearly made out that the appellant remained negligent and casual in their approach to pursue their legal remedy for determination of compensation of the acquired land. It is not believable that a landowner whose land has been acquired and who desperately needs the compensation for his acquired land will not inquire about the status of his case for years together. Further the appellant has stated that when the appeals of other landowners were decided on 2.11.2009, he came to know about the decision of the appeals of other RFA No.4209 of 2010 (O&M) 3 landowners in the village. However, it is strange that when the land references were decided by the Reference Court on 12.10.2002 of other villages along with their reference application, he never came to know about the decision of the Reference Court in the village itself. Such a plea as advanced before this Court for condoning the delay cannot be accepted. Moreover, it is well settled that a litigant cannot be given premium for his own fault. The judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Dilbagh Singh vs. Collector Land Acquisition, 2002 (2)LACC 199, will not be applicable in the instant case as the other appeals arising out of the same award have already been decided by this Court as mentioned by the appellant himself in the application for condonation of delay. Thus, I find no sufficient reasons to condone such a huge delay in filing this appeal. Resultantly, the prayer for condoning the delay is rejected, Since the appeal has been held to be time barred and the prayer for condonation of delay has not been accepted the main appeal does not survive. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed being time barred. (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge September 14, 2011 rk