Multan Singh vs State of Haryana

Rajesh Bindal, J.—By filing the present appeal, the landowner is seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Along with the appeal, an application seeking condonation of delay of 25 years and 219 days in filing thereof has also been filed.

Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 5.7.1982, issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ''the Act''), the State of Haryana sought to acquire land, situated in Mauja Karnal, Hadbast No. 1, Tehsil and District Karnal, for development and utilisation thereof as residential and commercial area in Sector-8, Karnal. Notification u/s 6 of the Act was issued on 21.2.1984. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, ''the Collector''), vide award dated 7.8.1984 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 86,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowner filed objections. On reference u/s 18 of the Act, the learned court below determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 35/- per square yard vide award dated 6.11.1987. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal.

Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submitted that delay in filing the appeal before this Court be condoned. The contention is that delay should not come in the way for granting substantial justice and the technicality should give way to justice. The Court should be liberal in condoning the delay.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the paper book.

Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Mewa Ram (Deceased) by his Lrs. and Others Vs. State of Haryana through The Land Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon, did not accept the prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeal because in another case enhancement of compensation for the adjacent land had been made.

In State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok AO and Others, Hon''ble the Supreme Court opined that proof of sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of discretion by the Court in condoning the delay

In Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Another Vs. Nanu Ram and Others, Hon''ble the Supreme Court opined that when mandatory provision is not complied and the delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the Court cannot condone the delay on sympathetic ground only.

The issue regarding condonation of delay has been considered by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Basawaraj and Others Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, wherein it has been opined as under:-

The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bonafide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.

The appeal along with the application for condonation of delay of 25 years and 219 days was filed by the appellant before this Court on 11.9.2013 stating that he could not file the appeal in time as he was under the impression that he will get the same amount of compensation which has been paid to other landowners. The delay is bonafide. It is neither intentional nor willful.

However, the fact remains that there are no particulars mentioned in the application regarding the date of knowledge and the reasons as to why the appellant did not prefer appeal earlier. This Court under similar circumstances had declined to condone the delay of 10 years 2 months and 39 days in filing the appeal in RFA No. 5793 of 2012-Brijesh Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and another, decided on 22.11.2013. The order was upheld by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Brijesh Kumar and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others,

The reason given by the applicant-appellant is not sufficient to condone huge delay of delay of 25 years and 219 days in filing the appeal. The appellant is not illiterate. He should have been vigilant about his case. He cannot be permitted to sleep over the matter for about more than two decades and then seek condonation of delay. It may be noticed that a number of land owners aggrieved against the award of the learned Court below pertaining to the same acquisition filed appeals before this Court which were disposed of vide judgment of this court in Dr. Rajwant Singh Vs. State of Haryana,

For the reasons mentioned above, the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.