State of Haryana vs Surjit

Rajesh Bindal, J.—This order will dispose of RFA Nos. 7940 to 7957 of 2014, as he same arise out of a common acquisition. The facts have been extracted from RFA No. 7940 of 2014.

The State is in appeal impugning the common award of the learned court below dated 1.9.2010, vide which compensation for acquisition of land payable to the landowners was enhanced. Along with the appeal, applications seeking condonation of delay of 939 days in filing and 382 days in re-filing thereof have also been filed.

Vide notification dated 19.7.2002, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ''the Act''), State of Haryana sought to acquire land measuring 271.24 acres, situated in village Patti Gadar, Tehsil and District Kaithal for development and utilization thereof as commercial and residential Sector 18, Kaithal. The same was followed by notification dated 17.7.2003, issued under Section 6 of the Act. However, on measurement, me area of the acquired land was found to be 239.56 acres. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, ''the Collector), vide award dated 16.7.2005, assessed the market value of the land @ Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned court below, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 300/- per square yard. It is this award which has been impugned in the present appeals by the State.

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

It is not in dispute that in the first round of litigation of the acquisition in question, the cases were remitted back to the learned Reference Court vide judgment in RFA No. 5466 of 2008-Kirpal Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 27.3.2009. After fresh decision of the Reference Court in remanded matters, bunch of cases came up for hearing before this court, which were disposed of on 23.1.2012 vide detailed judgment in RFA No. 2218 of 2007-Smt. Maya and others v. State of Haryana and others, and finally the compensation was assessed @ Rs. 280/- per square yard. The award impugned in the present set of appeals is dated 1.9.2010. The appeals have been filed after delay of 939 days in filing and 382 days in re-filing thereof. The grounds raised in the application seeking condonation of delay are extracted below:

"2. That after passing of the said judgment dated 1.9.2010 the office of Distt. Attorney, Kaithal sent its comments to the office of Law Secretary-cum-Legal Remembrancer, Haryana vide memo No. 1810 dated 6.10.2010.

That thereafter, the office of Law Secretary-cum-Legal Remembrancer, Haryana vide its memo No. 64133 dated 2.10.2010 informed the office of deponent that this Department does not agree with the views of the Distt. Attorney, Kaithal that these are fit cases for filing RFA''s and is of the views that these are not fit cases for filing RFA''s.

That thereafter the case file was sent to the competent authority for taking departmental decision whether the appeal is to be filed or not. Finally the case file was received back in the office of deponent on 12.9.2011 with the departmental decision that appeal is to be filed.

That thereafter the office of deponent sent a letter to the office of Law Secretary-cum-Legal Remembrancer, Haryana vide its memo No. 6580 dated 24.10.2011 for issuing necessary instructions to the office of Advocate General, Haryana for filing appeal in the Hon''ble High Court.

That thereafter the office of Law Secretary-cum-Legal Remembrancer, Haryana issued instructions vide its memo No. 67085 dated 17.11.2011 to the office of Advocate General, Haryana for filing the appeal in the present case, the copy of which was received in this office on 22.11.11."

Though lot of reasons have been mentioned in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals, however, still there was delay of 382 days in re-filing thereof. The grounds mentioned are extracted below:

"2. That the present appeal was filed in this Hon''ble High Court, but registry has raised the following objections:

"i) As to how this appeal is within limitation?

ii) Name of ADJ be corrected in fair type copy of main and short award (mentioning as memo of cost) A.K. Sodi instead of A.K. Shori.

iii) Complete address of the respondents be given in M.O.P. (in LAC No. 147 of 2009).

iv) Head note of exemption affidavit be corrected (regarding omission of exemption)."

That thereafter office of Advocate General, Haryana vide letter No. 32225 dated 20.8.2013 asked the office of deponent to prepare draft affidavits for condonation of delay of 939 days and delay in refiling beyond forty days and send to the office of Advocate General, Haryana for approval immediately.

That after removing the above said objections the dealing hand put up the file to the legal cell of the office of deponent on 23.8.2013 through Kanungo to prepare the draft affidavits for condonation of delay and delay in re-filing appeal and same were got prepared and typed on 26.8.2013.

That after preparing the draft affidavits for condonation of delay and delay in refiling the appeal, the same were got vetted from the office of Advocate General, Haryana on dated.

That after preparing the necessary documents and complying with necessary procedure the present appeal is being refiled in this Hon''ble High Court without any further delay."

A bare perusal of the grounds mentioned either in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing or re-filing clearly shows total casualness on the part of the authorities in dealing with court cases. In the application for condonation of delay, it is stated that the District Attorney opined the case to be fit for filing appeal and referred the same to Legal Remembrancer, Haryana. Ultimately, the file was received in the office of Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Estate, Haryana, Panchkula on 12.9.2011 with the departmental decision that appeal is to be filed. Thereafter, Land Acquisition Officer sent letter dated 24.10.2011 to Legal Remembrancer for issuing necessary instructions to the office of Advocate General, Haryana for filing appeal in this court. Legal Remembrancer, Haryana issued instructions vide memo dated 17.11.2011 to the office of Advocate General for filing the appeal. Despite the fact that the learned Reference Court had awarded compensation @ Rs. 300/- per square yard in the bunch of cases and finally this Court assessed the compensation @ Rs. 280/- per square yard in Smt. Maya''s case (supra) vide judgment dated 23.1.2012, but still no efforts were made to file/refile the present set of appeals immediately.

In fact, while dealing with bunch of cases in Smt. Maya''s case (supra), it came across that in the first round of litigation as well as in second round of litigation, pertaining to the acquisition in question, the State had not filed appeals in all the cases decided by the Reference Court. The issue was dealt with subsequently by this court while passing order on 4.5.2012 in Smt. Maya''s case (supra), wherein it has been specifically noticed that appeals against the impugned award, whereby 18 land references were decided by the learned Reference Court, had not been filed till that date. The aforesaid information was in terms of information furnished by the concerned department before this court.

It is not a case in isolation where the State had not been vigilant enough to pursue the cases. On number of occasions, the matters came up before this court where the appeals filed by the State were dismissed either on account of inordinate delay in filing or re-filing the appeals. Some of them are as under:

"(i) In R.F.A. No. 1316 of 2009-State of Haryana and another v. Ram Krishan and others, decided on 7.9.2010, there was delay of 8 years and 251 days in re-filing the appeal.

(ii) In R.F.A. No. 6212 of 2013-State of Haryana and another v. Jasmer Singh and another, decided on 25.9.2013, there was delay of 616 days in filing the appeal.

(iii) In RFA No. 2325 of 2012-State of Haryana v. Harish, decided on 7.11.2013, there was delay of 653 days in re-filing and 104 days in filing the appeal.

(iv) In RFA No. 6878 of 2012-State of Haryana v. Smt. Kreshni and others, decided on 26.8.2013, there was delay of 761 days in filing the appeal.

(v) In RFA No. 6587 of 2012-State of Haryana v. Smt. Ganeshi and others, decided on 4.9.2013, there was delay of 622 days and 636 days in filing the appeal.

(vi) In RFA No. 4352 of 2012-State of Haryana and another v. Ram Sarup and others, decided on 12.11.2013, there was delay of 928 days in filing the appeal.

(vii) In RFA No. 6684 of 2012-State of Haryana v. Malkit Singh and others, decided on 8.8.2013, there was delay of 707 days in filing the appeal."

Considering the aforesaid factual matrix, I do not find that the reasons assigned by the State seeking condonation of delay of 939 days in filing and 382 days in re-filing the appeals are justifiable on any ground whatsoever.

Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Office of the 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 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."

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, opined as under:

"15. 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, the applications seeking condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the appeals are dismissed. Consequently, the appeals are also dismissed. Keeping in view the fact that in the present set of appeals in terms of the award of the Reference Court, the landowners shall be entitled to compensation of the acquired land @ Rs. 300/- per square yard, whereas final determination of compensation for the land acquired vide same notification by this court is Rs. 280/- per square yard, the State cannot be made to suffer on account of lapses committed by the officers/officials. The land was acquired for use by Haryana Urban Development Authority who, in turn, in terms of the conditions of allotment passes on the burden of enhancement on the plot holders. Considering the fact that in the case in hand, the appeals filed by the State are being dismissed on account of delay and as a result the landowners will get more amount of compensation, the burden thereon cannot be passed on to the plot holders, rather, the difference of the amount of compensation shall be recoverable from the guilty officers/officials, for which the Secretary of the Department concerned shall get an enquiry conducted for fixing the responsibility. The action taken and the amount recovered from the guilty officials shall be intimated to this court.

For the purpose, the case be listed before the court 15.5.2015.