RFA No.5054 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. RFA No.5054 of 2010 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.9.2011 Smt.Sandokhi and others ...Appellants vs Haryana State and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr.Shailendra Jain, Advocate, for the applicant-appellants. Mr.Ashish Gupta, AAG Haryana for the State. Mr.Ashwani Magu,Advocate, for Mr.Partap Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) C.M.Nos.12673,12674 and 12677-CI of 2010 Allowed subject to the just exceptions. C.M.No.12675-CI of 2010 Allowed only to the extent of taking on record copy of the judgment dated 5.11.2008 passed in RFA No. 193 of 2005. C.M.No.12686-CI of 2010 and RFA No.5054 of 2010 This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the award dated 31.1.2005 of the Reference Court,Hisar, determining the market value of the acquired land of the appellants. This appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellants for further enhancement of compensation. Along with this appeal, an application i.e.C.M. No.12686-CI of 2010 has been filed for condonation of delay of 1761 days in filing this appeal. ( this appeal has RFA No.5054 of 2010 (O&M) 2 been filed by the appellants on 4.3.2010). As per the averments made in this application the appellants obtained certified copy of the short order, as also of the main judgment dated 31.1.2005 of the Reference Court,Hisar, in February 2005 and engaged a counsel at Chandigarh. It is their case that even the grounds of appeal were prepared and while preparing the appeal it transpired that most of the claimants before the Reference Court had expired and as such the appellants were required to obtain death certificates and details of the legal representatives, who has died. Since the appellants are rustic villagers it took lot of time to obtain copies of the death certificates of the deceased claimants as also the details of their legal representatives inasmuch as, they were residing at different places. In this way, the instant delay has been caused in filing the appeal. It has been further averred that the appellants being rustic villagers could not understand the intricacies of law, thus, the delay caused was bona fide. It has been further averred in the said application that various Regular First Appeals arising out of the award of the Reference Court are still pending before this Court. In the application reliance has also been placed on various decisions of this Court wherein long delay has been condoned. The ground for condonation of delay as raised by the applicant- appellants is noticed only to be rejected, as the same is not corroborated from the record. It is the averment of the applicant-appellants that they engaged a counsel at Chandigarh in February 2005 and in fact the appeal was prepared and at that stage it transpired that most of the claimants before the Reference Court had expired and thereafter at the asking of the RFA No.5054 of 2010 (O&M) 3 counsel they obtained certified copies of the death certificates and other details of the legal representatives of such deceased claimants which took a lot of time. However, a vakalatnama signed in favour of the learned counsel representing them is dated 30.4.2009. It is not the case of the applicant- appellants that they had engaged some other lawyer at Chandigarh earlier who had advised them to prepare the documents as aforesaid. Thus, their averment that they had engaged a counsel in February 2005 who advised them is absolutely false. Not only this, the photo copies placed on record as Annexures A1 to A9 i.e. death certificates of the original claimants would show that most of the said certificates were already available with them immediately after the death of such claimants and, thus, the averment made by them that it has taken a lot of time to obtain death certificates of such claimants is incorrect. In fact, Pawan Kumar, Surja and Nimbo claimants had died only on 18.8.2007, 11.9.2008 and 7.9.2007 respectively. This fact alone belies the averment made in support of the application for condonation of delay. Apart, it has been blatantly said by the applicant-appellants that lot of time had been consumed for getting the details of the legal representatives of the original claimants who have died. The applicant-appellants before this Court are the legal representatives of such claimants. It is not understandable that as to how time has been consumed to get the details of the legal representatives of deceased claimants. It was only they who would have given required information to their counsel immediately. RFA No.5054 of 2010 (O&M) 4 Though, it has been stated in this application for condonation of delay that various appeals are arising of the Reference Court are still pending. However, no detail of such appeals is forthcoming. On the other hand, the appeals filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation have already been decided by this Court vide judgment dated 5.11.2008 which the applicant-appellants have placed on record themselves. In fact, vide aforesaid judgment 23 appeals pertaining to the claimants and 27 appeals filed by the Market Committee, Uklana, were disposed of against a total of 22 land references filed by the landowners were decided by one common award dated 31.1.2005, which is impugned before this Court. A comparison of the memo of parties as given in the copy of the award of the Reference Court (main order) and the judgment of this Court in RFA No.193 of 2005 decided on 5.11.2008, would show that all the appeals arising out of the land references have already been decided except that of the appellant. Thus, the averments made in the application for condonation of delay that appeals arising out of the same award are still pending cannot be relied upon as the same are based on falsity. No doubt the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned by the Appellate Court if there are sufficient reasons to explain such a delay. However, there are no sufficient grounds to condone the delay as the explanation given by the applicant-appellants has not been accepted by this Court, for the reasons recorded above. Reliance made by the counsel for the applicant-appellants on other cases wherein delay has been condoned by this Court is of no help to them. It is again well settled that each case for RFA No.5054 of 2010 (O&M) 5 condonation of delay has its own facts which are to be explained in the facts and circumstances of such case. It may also be mentioned at this stage that in support of their case learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Dilbagh Singh vs. Collector Land Acquisition, 2002 (2)LACC 199, to contend that pendency of appeals arising out of the award in other cases relating to the same acquisition constitutes a valid ground for condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the appellants, however, the said judgment is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case as explained above. 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 itself and other applications do not survive. Consequently, the main appeal is also dismissed being time barred. (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge September 13, 2011 rk