Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 4270 (PNJ)

Jangli v. State of Haryana

2006-11-03

HEMANT GUPTA

body2006
JUDGMENT Hemant Gupta, J. - The present appeal is directed against the award dated 5.3.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, on a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to "the Act"). 2. Vide notification dated 15.11.1994 under Section 4 of the Act, the State Government notified that land measuring 1490 acres 3 Kanals and 17 Marlas (correct area found to be 1490 acres 2 Kanals 6 Marlas) was likely to be needed for a public purpose. A notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 10.11.1995 and the Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 3.4.1997 determined compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,13,600/- per acre. 3. Aggrieved against the said determination of award by the learned Addl. Acquisition Collector, the appellant sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. Apart from the reference by the appellant, there were 163 other references which came to be decided by the learned Additional District Judge together on 5.3.2003 and the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector was maintained. 4. The appellant herein did not challenge the said award by way of appeal whereas 33 cases arising out of the said award were decided by this Court on September 08, 2006 on the basis of an earlier order dated May 19, 2006 deciding 387 cases. The amount of compensation has been determined as Rs. 15 lacs per acre. 5. The present appeal has been presented on 9.8.2006 along with C.M. No. 8927-Cl of 2006 for condonation of delay of 1163 days in filing of the appeal. It has been pleaded that Shri S.K. Gupta, Advocate, was counsel for the appellant before the learned trial Court but the appellant was not informed about the decision of the reference filed by him. The appellant being a rustic and illiterate villager did not contact his counsel on every date of hearing as reference was consolidated with other references. The information about the decision of the appeal was received by the appellant only in the first week of June, 2006 from his co-villagers whose land was acquired and, thus, the present appeal was filed after obtaining certified copy of the short order of Reference Court. 6. The information about the decision of the appeal was received by the appellant only in the first week of June, 2006 from his co-villagers whose land was acquired and, thus, the present appeal was filed after obtaining certified copy of the short order of Reference Court. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the appellant had no knowledge of the decision of the Reference Court inasmuch as the appellant was not informed by the counsel representing the appellant before the Reference Court. The appellant was not appearing before the Reference Court as his reference was part of large group of references. It was also pointed out that since there was no enhancement by the Reference Court, the counsel for the appellant before the Reference Court did not inform the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Dilbagh Singh v. Collector Land Acquisition, Industries Department Punjab, Chandigarh and others, (2002-2)131 P.L.R. 775, and a Division Bench decision of Orissa High Court reported as N. Budhiama (through L.Rs.) v. Land Acquisition Officer, Ganjam and another, 2003(2) All India Acquisition & Compensation Cases 208, to contend that the Court should condone the delay as there exists a sufficient cause. 7. The judgment in Dilbagh Singhs case (supra) was considered by me in C.M. No. 4900-CI of 2000 in R.F.A. No. 2143 of 2000 titled as Bhushan Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 4.9.2003 when condonation of delay of about 858 days in filing of Regular First Appeal No. 2143 of 2000 was being considered. After considering the said and other judgments, it was concluded as under : "The proposition of law laid down in the judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the appellants is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the provisions of limitation has to be construed liberally and in favour of the suitor, but where the principles laid down in the judgments referred to above are applicable, one of the principles which has laid emphasis that ordinarily a litigant does not stand the benefit on account of delay. Herein the appellants have sought condonation of delay after the appeal was allowed in another case. Herein the appellants have sought condonation of delay after the appeal was allowed in another case. The appellants were satisfied with the amount of compensation and have thought of filing appeal only when compensation was enhanced in the other cases. Still further the substantial justice is not qua the appellants alone but justice to the parties. It appears that the appellants have taken a conscious decision of not filing appeal being satisfied with the award enhanced by the learned Additional District Judge. The appellant could not be compelled to file an appeal and to claim compensation. A right vested with the appellants to seek enhanced compensation in appeal. However, no such right was exercised, therefore, after the decision of the appeal invocation of jurisdiction is mala fide. In Balakrishanan case one of the guidelines is that when the courts condone the delay due to laches the court shall compensate the opposite party for its loss. How the opposite party can be compensated with the loss in Land Acquisition Cases ? The claim of compensation is claim for money. If delay is condoned the appeal is bound to be allowed and the opposite party is liable to pay enhanced compensation with interest, even though the appellants have failed to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court for a long period. The opposite party cannot be compensated for the loss if the application for condonation of delay is to be allowed. If the amount of compensation is to be enhanced the liability of the State is to pay interest on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of taking over of the possession. By inaction or the conscious decision if the appellants have decided not to file appeal, the State cannot be burdened with the financial liability whereby the State is made to pay even interest for the delay of the appellant". 8. The principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment are applicable with full force in the present case. The appellant has sought to condone the delay in filing of appeal after the appeals in respect of same acquisitions were decided and the amount of compensation was increased substantially. For all these years, the appellant was satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded. The appellant has sought to dispute the amount of compensation only after the appeals of other land-owners was allowed by this Court. For all these years, the appellant was satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded. The appellant has sought to dispute the amount of compensation only after the appeals of other land-owners was allowed by this Court. Thus, I am of the opinion of that filing of appeal at this stage lacks bona fides. The appellant has not filed any affidavit of Shri S.K. Gupta, Advocate, to the effect that he has not communicated the decision of the Reference Court to the appellant. It is difficult to believe that 163 land references were decided by the Reference Court but the appellant came to know of the said decision only after the amount of compensation was enhanced by this Court. 9. The judgment of Orissa High Court in N. Budhiamas case (supra) pertains to a case of a minor widow. It was the said fact which weighed with the Division Bench while condoning the delay in filing of appeal. I do not find that the said judgment is applicable to the facts of the present case. 10. In view of the above discussion, I am satisfied that the appellant has not made any sufficient cause to seek condonation of delay of 1163 days in filing of appeal. Dismissed. Appeal dismissed.