R. F. A No. 4989 of 2010 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh CM Nos. 12417-19/CI/2010 and RFA No. 4989 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 6.10.2010 The Greater Mohali Area Development Authority ..... Appellant vs Surinder Kaur and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. D. V. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Naginder Singh, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant. Rajesh Bindal, J This order shall dispose of RFA Nos. 4989 to 4991, 4999 and 5000 of 2010, as common questions of law and facts are involved. The above said appeals have been filed by the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (hereinafter to be referred as “GMADA”), against the award of the learned court below in land acquisition cases. Along with the appeals, applications seeking condonation of delay have also been filed. The period of delay in different appeals ranges from 3 years and 90 days to 4 years and 203 days. The applications seeking permission to file appeals, have also been filed. Briefly, the facts are that land situated within the revenue estate of Villages Anandpur Sahib, Mataur and Lodhipur, District Ropar, was acquired by the Sate of Punjab vide notification dated 17.7.1997 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), for setting up of Urban Estate at Anandpur Sahib. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed compensation for the land of different villages at different rates which ranges from ` 65,000/- per acre to ` 4,55,000/- per acre. Aggrieved against the same, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, determined the fair value of the land which ranges from ` 12,100/- per marla to ` 22,500/- per marla. It is this award which is challenged before this court. It has been pleaded in the applications seeking permission to file appeals that initially Punjab Urban Development Authority (for short, “the PUDA”), was looking after the area for urban development in Anandpur Sahib. The land was acquired by the State of Punjab for the benefit of PUDA. Later on, it's control was transferred to Patiala in March 2007. Thereafter, it was transferred R. F. A No. 4989 of 2010 -2- to the applicant (GMADA) on 24.8.2010 and it is only thereafter that the present appeals along with applications for condonation of delay ranging from 3 years and 90 days to 4 years and 203 days in different appeals were filed. Another fact which is mentioned in the applications for seeking permission to file appeals is that the Land Acquisition Collector had earlier engaged Shri Rajiv Malhotra, Advocate, to file appeals against the award of the learned reference court in Land Reference nos. 179, 182 and 183 of 21.12.2001, vide sanction order dated 18.9.2007 issued by the Chief Administrator, PUDA. In Land Reference Nos. 31 and 32 of 2002, Land Acquisition Collector had engaged Shri Manjit Singh Khaira, Advocate. However, now it has been found that those appeals had not been filed and presently the appeals are being filed along with applications seeking condonation of delay. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant-appellant, I do not find that any ground has been made out for condonation of huge delay ranging from 3 years and 90 days to 4 years and 203 days in the present appeals. A bunch of cases arising out of the acquisition were listed before this court for final hearing in which hearing commenced on 31.8.2010. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the landowners raised a specific issue that the State has not filed appeals in all the cases wherein the references were decided by the learned court below and the awards in those cases had attained finality. Today in court, the affidavit of Balbir Singh, Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Development Department, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) has been filed in RFA No. 2466 of 2008 mentioning therein that out of total 83 references received by the Collector, three were rejected by him. In one case the State did not prefer to file appeal as the amount of compensation on account of acquisition of trees was quite meager. Two land references were rejected by the learned court below whereas one was pending, leaving a balance of 76. Out of these references, appeals were filed in 71 cases and five were in the pipe line for being filed. In order to explain non-filing of appeals in the five cases, it is mentioned in the affidavit that initially the office of Advocate General, Punjab, opined the cases to be not fit for filing of appeals, however, after the work has been entrusted to the applicant-appellants, the appeals are in the process of being filed. It is further mentioned that three cases were entrusted to Shri Rajiv Malhotra, Advocate, but the same were not filed at the relevant time. Now the condonation of delay is sought by only stating in the application that the present applicant-appellant being the beneficiary of the acquisition of the land, being not a party in the court below should be permitted to file appeal against the award of the R. F. A No. 4989 of 2010 -3- learned court below. The fact is not in dispute that the beneficiary of the acquisition at the time when notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued for acquisition of the land and at the time when awards were passed by the learned court below was PUDA. PUDA had, in fact, filed 34 appeals in this court against different awards either within limitation from the date of award or after some delay. All the appeals were admitted and were listed for regular hearing. Another fact which is required to be noticed is that out of 76 references decided by the learned court below, in terms of the affidavit of Balbir Singh, Land Acquisition Collector, neither PUDA nor the Punjab State filed appeals in all the cases at the initial stage as some of the appeals were filed by the PUDA and some by the State of Punjab. It is also not in dispute that the three appeals were entrusted to a counsel for filing in the court way back on 18.9.2007 but till such time, these were filed in court on 4.10.2010 by a different counsel, none of the official of the PUDA ever thought of enquiring whether these appeals had been filed by the counsel or not. There is no information available about the appeals which were opined to be unfit for filing by the Advocate General's office. In Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another, 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 284, Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined that law of limitation is founded on public policy. The prescription of period of limitation is not with an object to destroy the rights of the party but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for certain specified period. However, the courts have been clothed with the power to condone the delay if sufficient cause is shown for not approaching the court within the prescribed period. The condonation of delay in a case depends on the fact situation therein and no hard and fast rule as such can be laid down. Though some latitude is being granted to the State authority while considering the application for condonation of delay filed by them, as the State represents collective cause of the community and the decisions are taken by the officers/agencies at a slow pace with impersonal latitude in moving the files. While referring to the case law on the subject in detail and considering the facts of the case in hand there, Hon'ble the Supreme Court set aside the order passed by Gujarat High Court condoning the delay of more than 4 years in filing the appeal considering the fact that the State authorities were well within the knowledge of the litigation and had even engaged counsel there. The relevant paragraphs therefrom are extracted below: “13. From what we have noted above, it is clear that the Law R. F. A No. 4989 of 2010 -4- Department of respondent No. 1 was very much aware of the proceedings of the first as well as the second suit. In the first case, Ms. Rekhaben M. Patel was appointed as an advocate and in the second case Shri B. R. Sharma was instructed to appear on behalf of the respondents, but none of the officers is shown to have personally contacted either of the advocates for the purpose of filing written statement and preparation of the case and none bothered to appear before the trial court on any of the dates of hearing. It is a matter of surprise that even though an officer of the rank of General Manager (Law) had issued instructions to Ms. Rekhaben M. Patel to appear and file vakalat as early as in May, 2001 and Manager (Law) had given vakalat to Shri B. R. Sharma, Advocate in the month of May, 2005, in the application filed for condonation of delay, the respondents boldly stated that the Law Department came to know about the ex parte decree only in the month of January/February, 2008. The respondents went to the extent of suggesting that the parties may have arranged or joined hands with some employee of the corporation and that may be the reason why after engaging advocates, nobody contacted them for the purpose of giving instructions for filing written statement and giving appropriate instructions which resulted in passing of the ex parte decrees. In our view, the above statement contained in para 1 of the application is not only incorrect but is ex facie false and the High Court committed grave error by condoning more than four years' delay in filing of appeal ignoring the judicially accepted parameters for exercise of discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the application for condonation of delay filed by the respondents is dismissed. As a corollary, the appeal filed by the respondents against judgment and decree dated 30.10.2004 shall stand dismissed as barred by time. However, it is made clear that the disposal of this appeal shall not absolve the higher functionaries of respondent No. 1 from the responsibility of conducting a thorough probe into the matter so that accountability of the defaulting officers/officials may be fixed and the loss, if any, suffered by respondent No. 1 recovered from them after complying with the rules of natural justice.” R. F. A No. 4989 of 2010 -5- Considering the aforesaid facts and the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, I do not find that any reasonable ground has been made out for condonation of huge delay in filing the appeal, especially when not only the State but even the beneficiaries of the acquisition of the land were within the knowledge of the awards passed against them. The applications for condonation of delay in filing the appeals are accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the applications for permission to file appeals are also dismissed. 6.10.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge (Refer to reporter)