C.M.No.8125-CI of 2008 in/and 1 R.F.A.No.4076 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.8125-CI of 2008 in R.F.A.No.4076 of 2008 Date of Decision : 18.11.2009 Chander Verma and another ...Applicant/Appellants Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant/appellants. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Addl. AG, Haryana. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The applicant/appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased Cheti Lal, who has filed a petition under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'), for determination of the market value of the acquired land. The application is for condonation of delay of 1038 days in filing the appeal against the Award of the Reference Court dated 24.3.2005. Land measuring 66.28 acres was acquired vide notification dated 10.7.1995 under Section 4 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector announced his Award on 1.7.1998. Cheti Lal-deceased filed a petition under Section 28-A of the Act for redetermination of the amount of compensation on the basis of judgment dated 7.5.2001 passed by the C.M.No.8125-CI of 2008 in/and 2 R.F.A.No.4076 of 2008 Reference Court in case of Kishan Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana, assessing the market value at Rs.425/- per square yard. The other legal heirs of Cheti Lal filed an appeal bearing RFA No.806 of 2007 before this Court. The said appeal was decided on 24.8.2007 enhancing the amount of compensation to Rs.500/- per square yard. After the amount of compensation was enhanced in appeal filed by the other claimants, the applicant/appellants filed the present application for condonation of delay of 1038 days on 19.4.2008. A perusal of the above facts would show that the applicant/appellants have filed the present appeal after the amount of compensation was enhanced in the appeal of the other claimants. The question, whether the delay in such circumstance can be condoned, came up for consideration before this Court in C.M.No.4900-CI of 2000 in RFA No.2143 of 2000 titled “Bhushan Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana and others”, decided on 4.9.2003, wherein after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N. Balakrishanan Vs. Krishnamurthy, AIR 1998 SC 3222 and other judgments, delay of 858 days in filing the appeal was not condoned for the reason that the appeal was filed after the decision in other cases. It was concluded as under : "In Balakrishanan case one of the guidelines is that when the courts condone the delay due to laches the court shall compensate the opposite party for its loss. How the opposite party can be compensated with the loss in Land Acquisition Cases. The claim of compensation is claim for money. If delay C.M.No.8125-CI of 2008 in/and 3 R.F.A.No.4076 of 2008 is condoned the appeal is bound to be allowed and the opposite party is liable to pay enhanced compensation with interest, even though the appellants have failed to invoke the jurisdiction of this court for a long period. The opposite party cannot be compensated for the loss if the application for condonation of delay is to be allowed. If the amount of compensation is to be enhanced the liability of the State is to pay interest on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of taking over of the possession. By inaction or the conscious decision if the appellants have decided not to file appeal, the State cannot be burdened with the financial liability whereby the State is made to pay even interest for the delay of the appellant." The principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment are applicable with full force in the present case. The appellants have sought condonation of the delay in filing of appeal after the appeals in respect of same acquisitions were decided and the amount of compensation was increased substantially. For all these years, the appellants were satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded. The appellants have sought to dispute the amount of compensation only after the appeals of other claimants was allowed by this Court. Thus, I am of the opinion that filing of appeal at this stage lacks bona fides. It is difficult to believe that large number of land references were decided by the Reference Court but the appellants came to know of the said decision only after the amount of compensation was enhanced by this Court. In view of the above, when the applicant/appellants have filed C.M.No.8125-CI of 2008 in/and 4 R.F.A.No.4076 of 2008 the appeal after the decision in the other appeals, I do not find that any sufficient case is made out for condonation of delay. Dismissed. 18.11.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE