Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation vs Shobha Devi and Others

Rajesh Bindal, J—This order will dispose of a bunch of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 5106 to 5117 of 2015, filed by Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation (for short, ''HSIIDC''), impugning the award of the court below assessing compensation on account of acquisition of land.

The facts have been extracted from RFA No. 5106 of 2015.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 12.12.2008, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ''the Act''), State of Haryana sought to acquire 26 kanals and 17 marlas of land, situated within the revenue estate of village Kukrola, Tehsil Manesar, District Gurgaon for construction of grade separator on NH-8 KMP Expressway connecting NH No. 1, 10, 8 and 2. The same was followed by notification dated 9.3.2009, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, ''the Collector'') vide award dated 11.8.2009, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 35,00,000/- per acre. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 66,05,872/- per acre.

The appeal is accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay of 540 days in filing the appeal.

When the appeal was listed on 14.9.2015, learned counsel for the appellant sought time to file application along with better affidavit to explain huge delay in filing the appeal. No application has been filed. It was submitted that the application was returned with objection. The same was filed later on, but could not be listed.

Seeing the conduct of the appellant, I do not find any good reason to grant any further time. The grounds mentioned in the application seeking condonation of delay are as under:

"2. That with regard to delay in filing the present appeal, the applicant/appellant hereby submits that the cross appeal (RFA 2299 of 2014) is already pending adjudication before this Hon''ble Court. Therefore, in terms of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Hon''ble Court in the case of Dilbagh Singh Vs. Collector Land Acquisition, Industries Department Punjab and Others, (2002) 2 ILR (P&H) 503 that pendency of appeals arising out of the same award in other cases is a valid ground for condonation of delay. Thus, the delay in filing the present appeal may kindly be condoned.

That the applicant/appellant further submits that in case the delay in filing the present appeal is not condoned, the applicant/appellant will suffer great hardship because the applicant/appellant is having a very good case on merits. The Hon''ble Supreme Court of State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok AO and Others, AIR 2005 SC 2191 : (2005) 100 CLT 111 : (2005) 183 ELT 337 : (2005) 4 JT 10 : (2005) 3 SCC 752 : (2005) 1 SCR 108 : (2005) 1 UJ 648 : (2005) AIRSCW 1748 : (2005) 3 Supreme 107 held that "if the refusal to condone the delay results in grave miscarriage of justice, it would be a ground to condone the delay."

Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Office of The Chief Post Master General and Others Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Another, AIR 2012 SC 1506 : (2012) 113 CLT 1066 : (2012) 174 CompCas 387 : (2012) 2 CTC 240 : (2012) 277 ELT 289 : (2012) 348 ITR 7 : (2012) 2 SCALE 782 : (2012) 3 SCC 563 : (2013) 1 SLJ 320 : (2012) 207 TAXMAN 163 : (2012) AIRSCW 1812 : (2012) 2 Supreme 244 , did not accept the prayer for condonation of delay in filing appeal by the State and has held that law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government State and its instrumentalities. They should be placed on equal footing in the matter of condonation of delay. Although a liberal view can be taken to advance substantial justice, but until and unless the State has reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay, it cannot be condoned. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:

"13. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay."

It is not the case in isolation where HSIIDC has shown casualness in dealing with the cases pertaining to acquisition of land. In State of Haryana, thousands of acres of land had been acquired for use by HSIIDC for development as industrial estate in different districts. The State, being the acquiring authority, normally files appeals in all the cases impugning the award of the Reference Court, if it is aggrieved. However, a policy decision was taken by the State that in cases pertaining to acquisition of land for HSIIDC, the State will not prefer any appeal to avoid duplicacy and only HSIIDC will file appeal, but still the cases are not being taken care of properly. At the first stage, there are hardly any cases before the Reference Court, where though HSIIDC is party, any relevant evidence is led. There are other instances where conduct of HSIIDC shows that it hardly takes care of its cases or takes any action against the erring officer/official (s), though pay cost running into crores of rupees and huge professional fee as well. For instance-

"(i) In RFA No. 5134 of 2015-Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation v. Rewa Kumari and another, where the award was passed by the Reference Court on 29.11.2014, for filing appeals on behalf of HSIIDC, the Committee constituted for giving legal opinion regarding filing of appeals, took the decision in July, 2015 and appeals were filed in this Court in September, 2015.

(ii) For filing frivolous review applications before Hon''ble the Supreme Court, HSIIDC had to pay cost of about Rs. 86,00,000/- - Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and Others Vs. Mawasi and Others etc. etc., AIR 2013 SC 3874 : (2012) 4 CTC 554 : (2012) 6 JT 211 : (2012) 6 SCALE 60 : (2012) 7 SCC 200 : (2012) AIRSCW 4222 : (2013) AIRSCW 1612 : (2012) 8 Supreme 600 .

(iii) When despite grant of time for producing the site plan showing acquisition of land for IMT Manesar, the same was not produced, which resulted in wastage of court''s time, HSIIDC was burdened with cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- vide order dated 21.9.2015 in RFA No. 7242 of 2012-Smt. Saroj v. Land Acquisition Collector-cum-S.D.O. (Civil) Gurgaon and others.

(iv) In RFA No. 3300 of 2001-State of Haryana v. The Agar Nagar Cooperative House Building Society, this Court noticed that there are number of fixed deposits lying with the Registry of this court in terms of various interim orders passed in land acquisition cases, the appeals wherein, either filed by the landowners or State/HSIIDC/HUDA had already been decided long back. In some cases, the State had apparently paid compensation to many landowners."

The apparent reason for not taking care of the cases by HSIIDC is that they are at liberty to pass on the burden of enhancement, if any, on the plot holders.

Even to address arguments on merits, learned counsel for the appellant did not have any site plan to show the location of the acquired land or the land pertaining to the sale deeds produced by the landowners or the State/HSIIDC. Status of the award (Ex. PX), relied upon by the learned Reference Court pertaining to acquisition of land of the same village, where notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued 7 months and 17 days prior in time has not been mentioned in the grounds of appeal despite directions issued by this court in R.F.A. No. 4742 of 2010-The State of Haryana and another v. Sh. Tek Chand and others, decided on 11.10.2010, in the following terms:

"To avoid unnecessary adjournments of the cases, I deem it appropriate to direct that in all appeals filed by the land owners or the State following information must be furnished in the appeal itself:

(i) In case the learned Reference Court had relied upon any earlier award pertaining to same or any other acquisition, the fact as to whether any appeal against the same is pending or not, should be mentioned in the grounds of appeal. The number of such appeal and status thereof be also mentioned.

(ii) In case no earlier award is relied upon by the Reference Court, it should be mentioned that the Reference Court has not relied upon any earlier award.

The aforesaid facts should be mentioned in the last para of the grounds of appeal before the prayer clause. The Registry is directed to ensure compliance of the requirement. This may be brought to the notice of the Bar Association for notifying to the learned members of the Bar."

For the reasons mentioned above, the applications for condonation of delay are dismissed. Consequently, the appeals are also dismissed.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per the calculation of the appellant, at the most Rs. 40,00,000/- per acre would be the reasonable amount of compensation, meaning thereby the award of compensation @ Rs. 66,05,872/- per acre is more than the assessment of the appellant. The State or the appellant cannot be made to suffer that loss only because its officer/official(s) tend to sleep.

The Managing Director, HSIIDC shall get an enquiry conducted into the matter and fix the responsibility of the officer/official(s), who will bear this loss suffered by HSIIDC. The enquiry report be placed before the court.

For that matter, only first paper book in the bunch may be listed before the court on 18 July, 2016.