State of Haryana vs Harish

Rajesh Bindal, J.—The State is in appeal seeking reduction in the amount of compensation for the acquired land. Along with the appeals,

applications seeking condonation of delay in filing and re-filing thereof have also been filed. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification

dated 26.6.1989, issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ""the Act''), the State of Haryana acquired 655.93 acres of land,

situated in village Ramgarh, Hadbast No. 232, Tehsil and District Panchkula for development and utilization of land as residential, commercial and

institutional purposes in Urban Estate, Panchkula. The same was followed by notification u/s 6 of the Act, issued on 25.6.1990. The Land

Acquisition Collector (for short, ""the Collector'') assessed the compensation @ Rs. 1,10,000/- per acre for Chain and Abi land; Rs. 90,000/- per

acre for Barani land; Rs. 70,000/- per acre for Banjar Kadim land and Rs. 50,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin kind of land. Dissatisfied with the

award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference, the learned court below vide award dated 5.9.2009 determined the market

value of the acquired land @ Rs. 250/- per square yard. It is the aforesaid award, which is impugned by the State before this court.

There is delay of 653 days in re-filing and 184 days in filing the appeal.

Learned counsel for the State did not dispute the fact that CM No. 13443/CI of 2012 filed in RFA No. 6878 of 2012 - State of Haryana v.

Smt. Kreshni and others, seeking condonation of delay of 761 days in filing the appeal arising out of the same acquisition was dismissed by this

court on 26.8.2013. Vide the aforesaid order, similar applications filed in nine cases were dismissed. He also did not dispute the fact that CM No.

12642/CI of 2012 filed in RFA No. 6587 of 2012 - State of Haryana v. Smt. Ganeshi and others, and four connected matters seeking

condonation of delay of 622 and 636 days in filing thereof arising out of the same acquisition was dismissed by this court on 4.9.2013.

In the present appeal, a perusal of the application seeking condonation of delay shows that the Additional District Judge decided the reference,

vide award dated 5.9.2009. The District Attorney sent his comments to the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana vide letter dated 9.12.2009 conveying

that limitation to file appeal was upto 5.12.2009. Meaning thereby even the District Attorney continued sleeping over the matter and sent his

comments after the limitation for filing the appeal had already expired. The Legal Remembrancer, vide letter dated 31.12.2009, opined the case to

be fit for filling appeal. The sanction was communicated to the Advocate General, Haryana, which was received in the office of the Land

Acquisition Officer, Panchkula on 7.1.2010. It is pleaded in the application that time was taken in getting the judgment typed from the market and

also in preparation of stay application and the supporting affidavit. It is claimed in the application that requisite documents were submitted in the

office of Advocate General, Haryana, vide letter dated 21.4.2010. However, still the appeal was filed in this court on 11.6.2010. A perusal of the

court fee annexed shows that the same was purchased on 23.4.2010. The same was returned with objections on 12.8.2010 as the appeal was

barred by 184 days in filing. The office of Advocate General is manned by army of Law Officers. The officer, who filed the appeal, is expected to

be aware of the fact that the appeal when being filed was belated and it required filing of an application for condonation of delay as well, but still he

did not think it appropriate or part of his duly to file the same complete in all respects in court. Be that as it may, still when the appeal was returned

with objections, the same was required to be re-filed within a period of 40 days complete in all respects, but the same was again filed on

17.11.2010 still incomplete and had to be returned back on 18.11.2010. The same was re-filed on 31.1.2011 to be returned on 1.2.2011, with

the observation that objections already raised on 12.8.2010 had still not been complied with. Thereafter, it was refiled on 18.5.2012 to be

returned again on 19.5.2012 and finally to be refiled on 9.7.2012. Further, the affidavit of the Collector filed in support of application seeking

condonation of delay in filing the appeal is dated 3.11.2010 but states that documents were handed over in the office of Advocate General,

Haryana on 11.11.2010.

The aforesaid facts clearly establish that casualness is writ large in the functioning of the State, where no one is responsible for any action/in-

action. In the application seeking condonation of delay, an interesting plea has been taken that dealing hand remained busy in preparation of

counter affidavit to be filed in some cases pending before Hon''ble the Supreme Court and in the process, the delay occurred. The aforesaid

ground, in my opinion, cannot be accepted as reasonable for condoning huge delay of 653 days in re-filing the appeal. If the State does not have

the staff to contest the litigation pertaining to the acquisition of land, it has no business to indulge in all these activities. The officers working in the

State are custodian of public money. They are bound to work and are paid for that, but still the case in hand is not in isolation where the State lost

cases on account of lethargy of the officers/officials. In many cases, instances of connivance are also there, but as the experience shows, strong

action has not been taken against any of the guilty official/officer, as a result of which indiscipline is multiplying. The shirkers are fully confident that

they will not be held responsible for any action/in-action, hence, they work at case. The casualness of the Land Acquisition Officer in the present

case is evident from the fact that he is filing the application seeking condonation of delay of 184 days in filing the appeal along with the affidavit

dated 3.11.2010, however, mentioning a date therein that the documents were handed over to the office of Advocate General on 11.11.2010 for

filing in court, a date which was yet to come though the application and the affidavit had already been signed by him. Besides the huge delay in re-

filing the appeal, there is substantial delay of 189 days in filing the appeal as well. The same also cannot be justified for the reasons mentioned in the

application, which make out a case of nothing more than casualness. Both the applications do not suggest that any action has been taken against

any of the officer/official for his lapse.

Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Office of The Chief Post Master General and Others Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Another, 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 & its instrumentalities 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 here under:

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 filed 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 not 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.

The issue regarding condonation of delay has been considered by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6974 of 2013, Basawaraj

and another v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, decided on 22.8.2013, 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 bona fide 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.

For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find that any case has been made out for condonation of delay of 184 days in filing and 653 days in

re-filing the appeal. Accordingly, the applications are dismissed, as a consequence of which the appeal is also dismissed. Before parting with the

order, this court would like to place the matter before Chief Secretary, Haryana for getting an enquiry, fixing responsibility of the guilty

officers/officials, who were at lapse in not taking care of the cases pertaining to the acquisition appropriately. It shall relate to all the cases of

acquisition in question and other similar cases as well Besides the aforesaid exercise, he shall also get it enquired into as to what is reasonable

amount of compensation which should have been awarded by the court below or to which the landowners deserved in terms of the evidence

produced on record, as in the appeals filed by the State the prayer was for reduction of compensation, as awarded by the learned Reference

Court. Authorities before opining the case to be fit for filing appeal must have applied their mind. The aforesaid enquiry be concluded within a

period of six months and the report be placed before this court.

The matter be listed in court on 14.5.2014 for the aforesaid purpose.