IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1380 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 08.08.2011 Municipal Committee, Bathinda …..Appellant versus Brij Lal and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) C.M. No.3813 of 2011 This application has been filed to condone 1005 days delay in filing the appeal. Appeal has been filed against an order dated 4.10.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge, allowing CWP No.2896 of 1987, filed by the private respondents. Vide the judgment, mentioned above, it was found, as a matter of fact, that in framing the development scheme, the appellant had taken land, more than the one, which it legally entitled to occupy. It is specifically stated that as per law, the appellant can take possession of 25% of the land of a land owner whose area falls in the scheme but in the present case, land utilized for the scheme was more than that. Taking note of the same, following direction was issued by this Court vide the judgment, mentioned above:- “This High Court in the said case has also taken a view and held that the scheme as a whole cannot be said to be bad. This petition is also allowed in the same terms and it is ordered that the respondents shall not transfer or take more than 35% of the plot area of the petitioners for utilisation under the LPA No.1380 of 2011(O&M) Scheme. The respondents are further directed to pay compensation to the petitioners in accordance with law for the area beyond 25% of the plot within two months along with interest @ 6% per annum along with other statutory interest and benefit flowing therefrom.” In this application, no explanation has been given to condone the huge delay. It is not in dispute that the private respondents filed an application to implement the order under challenge in the month of December 2008. Even then no action was taken. Authorities continue to sleep and rightful due of the land owners, whose land was utilized illegally, was not paid to them. In this application, it is nowhere stated as to what loss is going to cause to the applicant in case judgment passed by this Court is implemented. It is only stated that some portion of the land which is to be reverted to the private respondents, falls within 100 feet wide road. If that is so, the appellant may acquire the said land or may get it from the private respondents through negotiation as per law. No case is made out to condone the delay. Dismissed. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 08.08.2011 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 2