Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1178 (HP)

Chewari Ram v. State of HP

2016-06-26

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2016
JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. The delay of one year 11 months and 29 days as occurred in filing the appeal against the award dated 26.12.2012 passed by learned District Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur in land reference petition No.64 of 2006 has been sought to be condoned on the following grounds. (i) That the predecessor-in-interest of the applicants-appellants who had filed the reference petition has died during the pendency of the same and they were not aware that the appeal can be filed in the High Court against the award passed by the trial Court; (ii) That being legal heirs of deceased petitioner Chewari Ram, they kept on waiting for about one year that the compensation qua the acquired property will be paid to them as per the market value prevalent in the area and on inquiry came to know that the reference petition was decided about one year back in 2012; (iii) That after collecting the certified copy of the award, they engaged and consulted learned counsel at Shimla, however, could not contact him thereafter because of illness of Birmu Devi, one of the applicants/appellants; and (iv) That they could not arrange for a sum of Rs.43,000/- well in time being heavy amount, which was required for purchase of Court fee. 2. In reply to the application, the stand of the respondent-State is that no reasonable and plausible explanation is forthcoming so as to explain the inordinate delay as occurred in filing the appeal. It is denied that the applicants-appellants were not aware of the remedy available to them to file an appeal against the impugned award as they being legal heirs of deceased petitioner Chewari Ram were already on record. Since they were paid a sum of Rs.37,47,906/- towards enhanced amount of compensation in the month of October, 2013, therefore, the averments in the application that the said amount, which was required to purchase the Court fee, could not be arranged well in time, are wrong. 3. In rejoinder, the appellants-applicants have denied the contentions to the contrary in the reply being wrong and reiterated their case as set out in the application. In order to show that they are poor people, income certificate has also been annexed to the rejoinder. There is, however, no denial to the averments qua receipt of Rs.37,47,906/- by them towards enhanced amount of compensation in the month of October, 2013. In order to show that they are poor people, income certificate has also been annexed to the rejoinder. There is, however, no denial to the averments qua receipt of Rs.37,47,906/- by them towards enhanced amount of compensation in the month of October, 2013. There is again no denial to the averments in the reply that appellant/applicant No.2 Prakash is working in Co-operative Bank whereas applicant/appellant No.3 Surjan was Up-Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Thana-Nankhari. There is also no denial to the averments in the reply that they were substituted in the place of deceased Chewari Ram hence were pursuing the reference petition in the trial Court. 4. In view of this backdrop, there is no need of framing any issue in this application nor to take on record evidence and the same rather can be disposed of summarily in view of the pleadings of the parties supported by their respective affidavits. 5. Be it stated that the delay howsoever long occurred in filing a petition/suit/appeal can be condoned in case the parties seeking condonation of delay is able to show sufficient cause to explain the same. In the case in hand the delay as occurred in filing the main appeal is almost two years. In order to show sufficient cause, the explanation as set forth and discussed hereinabove is neither plausible nor satisfactory for the reason that no doubt Chewari Ram, the original petitioner has died during the pendency of the reference petition, however, the facts remain that present applicants-appellants were substituted as his legal representatives and had been pursuing the reference petition in the trial Court. They even were represented by a counsel. Therefore, it cannot be believed by any stretch of imagination that they were not aware of their right of filing the appeal for further enhancement of the compensation payable to them in respect of acquired property. It cannot also be believed that after the award passed by the trial Court they were under the impression of being paid the compensation in respect of the acquired property as per the market value prevalent in the area where the same was situated. It cannot also be believed that after the award passed by the trial Court they were under the impression of being paid the compensation in respect of the acquired property as per the market value prevalent in the area where the same was situated. It lies ill to claim that they could not arrange for the amount i.e. Rs.43,000/- for being spent on account of purchase of Court fee for the reason that a sum of Rs.37,47,906/- was received by them in the month of October, 2013 towards enhanced amount of compensation and such petty amount of Rs.43,000/- could have been spared easily by them, had they been vigilant and keen in filing the appeal for further enhancement of the compensation. 6. It is well settled that the delay cannot be condoned, if the party seeking such relief fails to show sufficient cause. Support in this regard can be drawn from the judgment of the apex Court in Balwant Singh (dead) versus Jagdish Singh and Others, (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases, 685. It is worthwhile to mention here that the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for filing the appeal extends a valuable right in favour of the respondent-State. Such right cannot be taken away on the grounds as aforesaid and to do so rather will be nothing but a misplaced sympathy, which has no place in law. 7. Now, if coming to the merits of the case, no doubt, learned counsel submits that the market value of the acquired property was much-much higher as compared to the one assessed by learned reference Court below. The perusal of the impugned award reveals that a sum of Rs.11,88,625/- which includes Rs.8,70,307/- on account of market value of the acquired land and structure standing thereon plus statutory benefits awarded as compensation by the Land Acquisition Collector has been enhanced by learned reference Court below to the tune of Rs.37,47,906/- minus the compensation awarded by the Collector. The enhancement is manifold hence this Court feels that just and reasonable compensation stands awarded by learned Court below qua the acquired land. Therefore, on merits also, no case is made out. 8. In view of what has been said hereinabove, there is no force in this application and the same is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the appeal and the pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.