C.M.No.1380-CI of 2011 in/and RFA No.582 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.1380-CI of 2011 in/and RFA No.582 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:20.09.2011 Bal Kishan and others ....Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the appellants. * * * RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) This is claimants' appeal for further enhancement of compensation. There is a delay of 1204 days in filing this appeal. The averments made in this application for condonation of delay reads thus:- “That the delay in filing the appeal is on account of the reason that the land of the appellants was acquired with other residents of the village and the appellants have authorized Sh. Jagir Singh to file his case and also give document to him as Jagi Singh and other persons also filed an appeal before his Hon'ble Court and Jagir Singh was under the impression that he has also given the documents to his counsel to prefer the appeal of the present appellants but, when the bunch of appeal was decided it is found that the appeal of the present appellants has not been filed as no documents has been supplied by Sh. Jagir Singh to his counsel whose land was also acquired with the appellants now that the cases of C.M.No.1380-CI of 2011 in/and RFA No.582 of 2011 (O&M) 2 other appellants has been decided and after tracing out of the file the appellant it is found that no appeal has been preferred on their behalf and now the appellants are filing the present appeal. That the appellants are land looser and their land has been acquired and they have no other land. That there is a delay of 1204 days of filing the appeal which is nor intentional neither malafide. If the delay is not condoned then the appellant will suffer great irreparable loss which can not be compensated in any manner.” Such an explanation as given in this case has not been accepted by this Court in RFA No.2950 of 2011 titled as Satish Kumar versus State of Haryana and others decided on15.09.2011. Thus, the reasons recorded therein, the application for condonation of delay is rejected. RFA No.582 of 2011 Since the application for condonation of delay is rejected, this appeal is also dismissed being time barred. September 20, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) savita JUDGE