1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.7770-CI of 2011 and RFA No.3428 of 2011 Date of decision: 28.11.2011 Ram Kishan Yadav ......Appellant(s) Versus The State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. The landowner by way of instant appeal challenged the impugned award of the Reference Court on the ground that market value determined by the Reference Court is on the lower side and he is entitled to the enhancement of compensation. This appeal is time barred and has been filed after a delay of 933 days. Along with this appeal, an application for condonation of aforesaid delay has been filed. The averments made in this application read thus: “2. That the present appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 6.5.2008 and a delay of 933 days has occurred which deserves to be condoned for the sufficient ground because the appellants were advised by the counsel that they no need to have file appeal as the matter has been decided by way of bunch of reference applications and they shall also get the same compensation as shall be assessed in the case of those persons/claimants who have already filed appeal in the Hon'ble High Court. 3. That the appellants being not satisfied with the 2 advise of the counsel made independent inquiry from other persons/claimants and came to know that they also require to file the appeal before the Hon'ble High Court well within time and should not wait. Thereafter, despite of exercising due diligence the present appeal was filed, in which delay of 933 days has occurred which is neither intentional nor deliberate. 4. That more so over as per the information of the appellant some appeals bearing No.RFA No.1280 of 2011 titled as Suresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana arising out of the same award are pending adjudication in this Hon'ble Court and in view of 2002(1) PLJ-504 it is held to be a sufficient ground to condone the delay.” From the perusal of the averments made in the application, it is crystal clear that the appellant has not pursued his remedy diligently. According to him, the counsel which he had engaged advised him not to file any appeal since the matter had been decided by way of bunch of reference applications and in view of that, he would also get the same compensation as had been assessed in the cases of those persons/claimants who had already filed appeal in this Court. His further averment is that since he felt dissatisfied with the above said advise of his counsel, he independently inquired from the other persons/claimants and it is then he came to know that he is required to file appeal in this Court. Immediately thereafter, he filed the present appeal and in this way, the delay of 933 days has occurred which is not intentional or deliberate. However, the conduct of the appellant shows lack of bona fide. From the averments made, it is amply clear that the appellant had pursued his remedy in a casual and negligent manner. Moreover, it is not believable that the landowner whose land has been acquired and who is seeking enhancement of compensation will not enquire about the status of his case 3 for such a long period. Prima facie, plea for condonation of delay has been concocted only for making a ground to condone such a huge delay. It is well settled that a litigant cannot be given premium for her/his own faults. Thus, the plea raised by the appellants to condone such a huge delay of 933 days is not accepted. Consequently, prayer for condonation of aforesaid delay is rejected. Since the application for condonation of delay is rejected, this appeal is also dismissed being time barred. November 28, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE