Appeal by claimants seeking enhancement of acquisition compensation filed with a 17-year delay. The Court rejected the claim for condonation, finding the appellants negligent and lacking bona fides, especially after similar appeals were decided shortly before with enhanced amounts.
Appeal dismissed; prayer for condonation of delay rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RFA No.2016 of 2010(O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RFA No.2016 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 15.11.2011
Nand Lal and others
......Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and another
......Respondent(s)
CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the appellant.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral)
This is claimants' appeal for further enhancement of compensation for their acquired land.
There is a delay of 17 years 354 days in filing this appeal.
The grounds for condoning the delay as averred in the application read thus:
“3. That the impugned order was announced on 21.01.1993 and the state file appeal appeal against the impugned order and in the appeal filed by the state against present appellants, Mr.Chaturbhuj Goyal, Advocate was appeared on behalf of present appellants and instructions were given to file the cross objections on behalf of present appellants and even other appellants in their separate case filed their separate appeals against the same award but inadvertently, the cross-objections in the present case could not be filed. Even appellant No.1 Smt.Duari Bai was expired on dated 11.07.2002.
4. That the similar appeals against the impugned award have already been allowed by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 04.11.2008 and the appeals of the
RFA No.2016 of 2010(O&M)
2
state were dismissed. Now one similar appeal R.F.A No.2218 of 1993 titled “C.P.Chhabra versus State of Haryana & others is pending in this Hon'ble Court. A copy of the order dated 04.11.2008 by which the similar appeal was allowed by this Hon'ble Court is attached with main appeal as Annexure A-1.
5. That the delay caused in the present case is not intentional but it is due to above said bonafide reason which deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice. 6. That this Hon'ble Court has already condoned the delay of more than 14 years in case the similar appeals were already been decided by this Hon'ble Court in case titled Jaimal Singh versus State of Punjab and others cited in 2009(2) PLR page 335. Further held in case titled Dilbag Singh versus Collector Land Acquisition and others cited 2000(2) RCR (Civil) page 764 that court must take liberal view while constructing sufficient cause. Even this Hon'ble Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India have already held in number of cases that court should not go on technicalities and case should be decided on merits.”
A perusal of the aforesaid averments would show that the appellants were totally negligent in pursuing the instant appeal. The averment, as made in the application, to the effect that they had instructed their counsel to file the appeal/cross-objections, is not supported by any further document/material, neither any such admission on behalf of their counsel, who was instructed to file the appeal, has been placed on record by way of his affidavit etc. Even otherwise, the appellant has sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal, after the appeals arising out of same acquisition were decided and the amount of compensation was increased substantially and only after the appeals of the other land owners were allowed by this Court. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that filing of the appeal at this stage lacks bona fide. The appellant has not filed any
RFA No.2016 of 2010(O&M)
3
affidavit of Sh. Chaturbhuj Goel, Advocate to the effect that he was instructed to file the appeal/cross-appeal.
It is well settled that a litigant cannot be given premium for his
own wrongs.
The judgment of this Court in Jangli versus State of Haryana
and others 2007(2) RCR (Civil) 67 wherein a similar view has been taken has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Thus, I find no justification for condoning such a huge delay. Dismissed.
No other application survives.
November 15, 2011 ps
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether condonation of a delay of 17 years in filing an appeal for enhancement of compensation can be allowed.
Whether the reasons provided for delay justify condoning a huge lapse in time after substantial compensation was already awarded in similar cases.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jaimal Singh versus State of Punjab and othersDistinguished¶22
2009(2) PLR page 335
Dilbag Singh versus Collector Land Acquisition and othersDistinguished¶22
2000(2) RCR (Civil) page 764
Jangli versus State of Haryana and othersExplained¶29
2007(2) RCR (Civil) 67
Nand Lal and others
State of Haryana and another
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
