LAWS(P&H)-2020-2-111

HARISH CHANDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On February 20, 2020
HARISH CHANDER Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act') is directed against the award of the Reference Court, Faridabad dated 15.02.1988 whereby, the market value for the land which had been acquired at that point of time vide notification dated 04.11.1979 in villages Etmadpur and Mawai had been assessed at Rs. 22/- per square yard. Apart from the appeal being barred by an inordinate delay of 11089 days, the applications have been filed for bringing on record the legal representatives of at least 5 appellants, who have expired wayback between 1996 to 2000 except Digeshwer, who is also the son of deceased-original appellant no. 1, who has also died.

(2.) In the application for condonation of delay also, the applicants have stated that they were under the bona fide belief that if any enhancement is made in case of other co-claimants, the same would be available to them and, thus, no sufficient cause has also been made out. The connected appeals had been filed by the land owners within the period of limitation were firstly filed in the year 1989 and were decided on 19.10.2005 (Annexure A-11) and the market value was enhanced to Rs. 50/- per square yard. The appellants had approached the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 19659 of 1992 directly challenging the order of the Reference Court, which was dismissed on 17.08.1994 (Annexure A-7). It is also their case that the review petition had also been dismissed by the Apex Court though the said order has not been appended.

(3.) Thereafter, the Apex Court allowed Civil Appeal No. 3777 of 2008 in the case of the similarly situated land owners on 01.04.2015 (Annexure A-12) and enhanced the market value to Rs. 63/- per square yard. The applicants-appellants, in their wisdom, filed execution petition before the Reference Court, which was got dismissed as withdrawn on 11.05.2018 (Annexure A-8) on the ground that they had filed petition before the Supreme Court for determination of compensation. The order reads thus:-