RFA No.2259 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.5537-CI of 2011 in/and RFA No.2259 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:20.09.2011 Jug Lal and others ....Appellants Versus State of Haryana and another ....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. Amandeep Singh Saini, Advocate for the appellants. * * * RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) There is a delay of 722 days in filing this appeal.The averments made in this application read thus:- “That appellants were wrongly advised by some one that a common appeal is to be filed against all the connected matters and therefore, they have not filed separate appeals within limitation but when they contacted to their counsel before the ld. trial court to release the amount enhanced by the ld. Addl.District Judge in the month of November 2009, then their counsel before the ld. Trial court has advised them to file appeal for enhancement and asked to file separate appeal before the Hon'ble High Court. That without causing any further delay, the present appeal is being filed before this Hon'ble Court. The delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor willful but due to bonafide reasons. The appellant/s will suffer irreparable loss and injury if the delay in filing the appeal is not condoned. RFA No.2259 of 2011 (O&M) 2 That some connected appeals are pending admitted before this Hon'ble Court.” As per the averments made in this application, the instant appeal could not be filed earlier under the wrong advice of someone that one common appeal is to be filed against all the connected matters. Except the aforesaid averment, no further information/facts are forthcoming as from whom they got the wrong advice. Even it is not mentioned whether any joint appeal was filed or not as averred. It has been further mentioned that when they had contacted their counsel in the Reference Court for release of enhanced amount, then he (counsel) had advised them to file an appeal. It is not believable that the landowners whose land has been acquired and who are anxious to get their compensation enhanced will keep sitting at home for such a long period only on an impression that one common appeal is to be filed and further without making any inquiries about the status of any such common appeal. In the absence of any further corroboration of the plea made, the same cannot be accepted. Prayer for condonation of delay of 722 days in filing this appeal is rejected. RFA No.2259 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