CM Nos.3134-35-CI of 2011 and RFA No.1280 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM Nos.3134-35-CI of 2011 and RFA No.1280 of 2011 Date of decision: 5.7.2011 Suresh Kumar etc. ......Appellant(s) Versus The State of Haryana etc. ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. R.A. Yadav, Advocate for the appellants. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) This appeal has been directed against the award dated 17.2.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, on a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on the ground that compensation granted by the Reference Court is inadequate. There is a delay of 1386 days in filing this appeal. There is also a delay of 335 days in refiling this appeal. It has been mentioned in the application for condonation of delay that the reference petition under Section 18 was filed by the father of the applicant-appellants and they could not get information about the decision of the Reference Court, as they had shifted to some other place. They came to know about the decision of the Reference Court only in the month of September 2008 from a co-villager who informed them about the decision of reference application of their land and thereafter, on enquiry, they came to know that the Reference Court had already decided their application on 17.2.2005 and thus, there were sufficient reasons for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period. CM Nos.3134-35-CI of 2011 and RFA No.1280 of 2011 2 The aforesaid averment made by the appellants does not inspire confidence, as it is their own case that after the death of their father, they were impleaded as legal representatives before the Reference Court and thus, averment of not knowing about the pendency of the reference application cannot be accepted. Moreover, it has also come on record that it was to their knowledge that the appeals filed by the other land owners against the award of the Reference Court have also been allowed and the compensation has been further enhanced. Not only this, the present appeal had been initially filed on 4.3.2009 and the same was returned by the Registry raising some objections. However, the appeal was not refiled after removing the objections and the same was refiled on 20.3.2011 after a delay of 335 days, in refiling this appeal. The averments made by the applicant-appellants to condone the delay in refiling the appeal read thus: “That the accompanying RFA was filed on 4.3.2009 before this Hon'ble Court and registry raised certain objections dated 26.3.2009 and after complying with the objections the same was re-filed on 25.5.2009 and again registry of this Hon'ble Court raised certain objections dated 22.6.2009 and after complying the objections the appeal was filed on 18.8.2009. The Registry of this Hon'ble Court again raised the objections on dated 29.9.2009 and after complying with the objections the appeal was again re-filed on 20.3.2010 and the Registry again raised certain objections on dated 22.5.2010 and after complying with the objections the appeal was again re-filed on 28.6.2010 and the Registry of this Hon'ble Court again raised certain objections dated 19.8.2010 CM Nos.3134-35-CI of 2011 and RFA No.1280 of 2011 3 and the appeal was again re-filed on 8.9.2010 and Registry of this Court again raised certain objections dated 8.11.2010. Hence the delay of days in re-filing the appeal occurred.” A perusal of the aforesaid averments shows that no plausible explanation is forthcoming on behalf of the appellants as to why they could not refile the appeal after removing the objections without any delay. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has very fairly stated that even RFA No.2364 of 2005 filed by the State of Haryana challenging the award of the Reference Court in favour of the appellants arising out of LAC No.723 of 2000 had also been dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 2.5.2011. Even at that point of time, the appellants never made any effort to get this appeal listed. In this view of the matter, I find no reason to condone the delay in filing as well as refiling of this appeal and the prayer is rejected. Since the applications for condonation of delay in filing and refiling the appeal have been dismissed, the present appeal is dismissed being time barred. July 5, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE