RFA No.5073 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.5073 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:15.11.2011 Dharam Singh and others ....Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s) RFA No.5074 of 2009 (O&M) Bhale Ram ....Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s) RFA No.519 of 2010 (O&M) Zile Singh and others ....Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s) RFA No.520 of 2010 (O&M) Om Parkash alias Om and others ....Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s) RFA No.521 of 2010 (O&M) Smt. Ankauri wd/o Har Chand and others ....Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s RFA No.5073 of 2009 (O&M) 2 RFA No.522 of 2010 (O&M) Smt. Malo wd/o Shri Risala and others ....Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s) RFA No.523 of 2010 (O&M) Bijender and others ....Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s) 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. R.K.Saini, Advocate for Mr. R.N.Lohan, Advocate for the appellant(s). Mr. H.S.Lalli, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Kuldip singh, Advocate for Mr. G.S.Hooda, Advocate for respondent No.3 in RFA No.5074 of 2009 for respondent No.4 in RFA No.5073 of 2009. Mr. Sudhir Hooda, Advocate for Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for respondent No. 3. * * * RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) This is a bunch of 7 appeals arising out of one common award of the Reference Court which have been filed on behalf of the landowners for enhancement of compensation. There is a delay, ranging from 2277 to 2290 days in filing of all these appeals, wherein similar grounds have been taken for RFA No.5073 of 2009 (O&M) 3 condoning the delay. The relevant averments reads thus:- “ That the delay in filing the appeal is not intentional rather the delay has been caused due to the fact that the appellants engaged Sh. Umesh Wadhwa, Advocate in the month of June 2003 for filing the appeal in this Hon'ble Court against judgment dated 31.03.2003. However, the appellants came to know about the non filing of the appeal on 15.07.2009 i.e. after the decision of the connected appeal by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 23.12.2008 when the other person of the village shown the copy of the order dated 23.12.2008. The appellants immediately came to Chandigarh to know Sh.Umesh Wadhwa, Advocate expired on 03.07.2003 and appeal has not been filed on behalf of the appellants in this Hon'ble Court. The appellants again applied for the certified copy of the order dated 31.03.2003 on 18.07.2009 and the certified copy was prepared on 21.07.2009 and also got the paper book completed and there after engaged the counsel at Chandigarh and the case was prepared and in this way the delay of 2277 days has occurred in filing the appeal.” It is relevant to note that in RFA No.4089 of 2010 titled as Smt. Murti and others versus State of Haryana and others decided on 10.08.2011 delay was sought to be condoned on similar averments but the same was rejected. Thus, I find no merit in the applications for condonation of delay for the reasons mentioned in the aforesaid judgment and the law laid down in Jangli Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2007 (2) RCR (Civil) 67 and the prayer for condonation of delay is hereby rejected. Consequently, the appeals, RFA No.5073 of 2009 (O&M) 4 which are time barred are also dismissed. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases. November 15, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) savita JUDGE