SURJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order of mine would dispose of C.M. No. 1934/C-1 of 1989, C.M. No. 2137/C-I of 1989 and C.M. No. 2117/C-I of 1989 as the condonation of delay has been claimed by making averments on similar facts. All the appeals are barred by time by about three years or more. Admittedly, the applicants sought references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act but did not approach this Court in appeals after the references were decided by the District Judge. It has been averred in the application for condonation of delay that some of the claimants approached this Court in first appeals and at their instance the compensation has been enhanced. In view of the enhancement having been made, the applicants submit that the delay in filing the appeals be condoned and they should be granted the same compensation which was granted to other claimants similarly circumstanced.

(2.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties this Court is of the view that the decision in similar matters is no ground for condoning the delay in filing the appeals after allowing time. In similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mewa Ram and others v. State of Haryana, 1987 AIR(SC) 45, declined to condone the delay. The ratio laid down by the Apex Court is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. The pendency of the Letters Patent Appeal would not make any difference for not applying the ratio laid down in Mewa Ram's case . In consequence of the observations made above, these applications are devoid of any merit and are, accordingly, dismissed without any orders as to costs. The dismissal of these applications would not disentitle the applicants to claim the benefits of the amended provisions of Land Acquisition Act in an appropriate Court, if they are entitled to in the eyes of law. Since this Court has declined to condone the delay in filing the appeals and the appeals having not been entertained, the Court-fee affixed by the applicants be refunded.