IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.6731-CI of 2011 in/and RFA No.2904 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:14.09.2011 Smt. Kailash Gupta and another ....Appellants Versus Haryana State 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. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the appellants. * * * RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) The land-owners have approached this Court by way of instant appeal challenging award dated 27.10.1999 passed by Reference Court whereby market value of the acquired land was fixed at Rs.90/- per square yard. The land measuring 483.61 acres which includes land of the appellants also of village Mewla Maharajpur was acquired vide notification dated 07.09.1992 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for setting up residential, commercial and institutional Sectors 44 and 47, Faridabad Ballabgarh Controlled Area. The LAC pronounced the award on 9.2.1995 assessing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.1,96,800/- per acre. The appellants filed reference application which was referred to the Reference Court. The land reference of the appellants was decided on 27.10.1999 in terms of the judgment dated 07.07.1999 of this Court passed in RFA No.1346 of 1998 titled as Manjit Singh Boparai Vs. State of Haryana and market value of the acquired land was determined at Rs.90/- per square yard. There is a delay of 3876 days in filing this appeal. In the application for condonation of delay, the relevant averments made in this application read thus:- “That the claimant appellants are residents of Khanna, in the State of Punjab, and had purchased land in the revenue estate of village Mewla Maharajpur, Faridabad, as a measure of security on account of the then on going millitancy problem in the State of Punjab. The land purchased by the claimant appellants, alongwith other lands, was acquired by the State of Haryana vide notification dated 7.9.1992 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, whereby about 483.61 acres of land in village Mewla Maharajpur were acquired for setting up residential, commercial and institutional Sectors 44 and 47, Faridabad Ballabgarh Controlled Area. That reference petitions were filed by the claimant appellants, as award made by the land Acquisition Collector was inadequare. Some other land owners had also filed their reference petitions and the same were earlier decided vide award dated 12.1.1998 passed by the Court of Shri Dewan Chand, Additional District Judge Faridabad whereby the market value of the acquired land was assessed @ Rs.325/- per square yard. In appeals, this Hon'ble Court vide judgment dated 7.1.1999 reduced the amount of compensation to Rs.90/- per square yard. Letters Paten Appeals filed before the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, were also dismissed. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide judgment dated 27.10.2004 passed in civil appeal No.9808 of 2003, titled Vinod Bansal vs.State of Haryana, set aside the award of the Reference Court and the judgment passed by the High Court and remanded the matter to the Court of Reference to decide the matter afresh. That on the basis of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 7.7.1999, the present reference petition of the claimant appellants was decided by the court of Shri S.P.Singh, Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide award dated 27.10.1999. That the claimant appellants were informed that appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 7.7.1999 is pending before the Division Bench and thereafter appeals by way of SLP had been filed before the Hon'ble High Court. The appellants were under a bonafide belief that as the decision in the case of the claimant appellants had been made on the basis of the judgment dated 7.7.1999 passed by this Hon'ble Court, whatever decision would follow in the case of Manjit Singh Boparai versus State of Haryana and other connected matters, the same decision would also apply to the case of the appellants. That the claimant appellants learnt that after the Hon'ble Supreme Court had remanded the reference petitions to the court of reference, the matter had been considered and decided afresh by the Court of Additional District Judge Faridabad vide award dated 12.1.2008 who reassessed the market value at Rs.238/- per square yard and thereafter this Hon'ble Court in further appeals has enhanced the compensation by assessing the market value at Rs.280/- per square yard vide its judgment dated 1.9.2009. The claimants who were not residents of Faridabad, were not aware of the further developments in the case and in the month of June 2010 learnt of the developments and approached their Advocate at Faridabad, to initiate proceeding for enabling them to avail of the benefit of the enhanced compensation. The appellants were informed that they had not filed appeal against the decision dated 27.10.1999 in the present award and so they would not be entitled to take benefit of the decision dated 12.1.2008 passed by the court of Reference or of the decision dated 1.9.2009 passed by the High Court and also that they would have to file their own appeal before the High Court and obtain necessary orders. That the claimant appellants applied for obtaining certified copy of the award on 23.06.2010 and the same was prepared on 23.06.2010 and collected on 5.7.2010. The claimants thereafter made enquiries and on learning that the under signed counsel had filed other connected matters in this Hon'ble Court where this Hon'ble Court has awarded compensation of Rs.280/- per square yard, engaged the counsel and have filed this appeal. That the cause shown above by the claimant appellants for seeking condonation of delay in filing the above appeal is good, sufficient and substantial and it is necessary in the interest of justice that the delay of 3876 days that has occued in the filing of the above appeal is ordered to be condoned and the above appeal is entertained on merits.” A perusal of the aforesaid averments would show that in spite of the fact that throughout it was to the knowledge of appellant that the other claimants were agitating the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, still after the decision of reference under Section 18 of the Act vide award dated 27.10.1999, they have not agitated the matter by filing any appeal challenging the aforesaid award. This shows that they were satisfied with the compensation awarded. The averment that they were under bonafide belief that the decision of the Apex Court in the other appeals filed against the judgment dated 7.7.1999 would also be made applicable to the appellant's case is without any basis. Rather from this averment, one fact is clearly established that they knew that matter regarding the enhancement of compensation by the other landowners was alive and pending before the Reference Court. Still they preferred not to challenge the award dated 27.10.1999 and when this Court enhanced the compensation @ Rs.280/- per square yard on the basis of the judgment dated 1.9.2009 passed in RFA No.4438 of 2008, they have woken up to claim more compensation. Thus, the cause shown by the appellant is not sufficient and bonafide to condone the delay. Since the application for condonation of delay is rejected, this appeal is also dismissed being time barred. September 14, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) savita JUDGE