RAM GIRI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the landowners seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land.Briefly, the facts of the case are that land measuring 256 acres 3 kanals and 17 marlas in village Manesar, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, was sought to be acquired by the State of Haryana for setting up of Industrial Model Township, Manesar vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') on 30.4.1994 which was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act on 30.3.1995. THE award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') on 28.3.1997 determining the value of the acquired land @ Rs. 3,67,400/- per acre.

(2.) DISSATISFIED with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections which were referred for consideration by the learned Court below. Considering the material facts placed on record by the parties, the learned Court below awarded compensation @ Rs. 6,51,994.13 per acre for 'A' class land, i.e., situated around 500 yards from the National Highway No.8 and Rs. 3,91,196.97 per acre for 'B' class land situated in the interior.Aggrieved against the award of learned Court below, the landowners are before this Court. Along with the appeal, application seeking condonation of delay of 2,332 days has also been filed.Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants submitted that delay in filing the present 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 applicants-appellants and perused the record.Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mewa Ram (Deceased) by his LRs and others vs State of Haryana, (1986) 4 SCC 151 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 Lipokao and others, (2005) 3 SCC 752, 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 D. Gopinathan Pillai vs State of Kerala and another, (2007) 2 SCC 322, Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined that when mandatory provision is not complied and the delay is not properly, satisfactorily & convincingly explained, the Court cannot condone the delay on sympathetic ground only.It may be noticed that a number of land owners aggrieved against the award of the learned Court below filed appeals before this Court which were disposed of vide judgment dated 5.9.2008, passed in RFA No. 2587 of 2004 M/s Opera House Creations Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Haryana and another. Thereafter, even the appeals pertaining to the acquisition in question filed before Hon'ble the Supreme Court were also decided on 17.8.2010 vide judgment in Civil Appeal No. 6515 of 2009 Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation vs Pran Sukh and others.The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 2,332 days was filed by the applicants-appellants before this Court on 8.4.2011 stating therein that they were not aware of the decision of reference petition till 25.3.2011. It was submitted that Ram Phal husband of appellant no. 1, who expired on 2.10.2004, was taking care of the land acquisition cases before the District Judge. Before his death, due to illness and unconsciousness, he could not inform the family members about the pendency of the reference petition before the learned court below. The appellants came to know about the decision of the case when the applicant appellant Jitender visited the office of Shri K. K. Yadav, Advocate at Gurgaon in connection with a family dispute. Thereafter, the appellants obtained certified copy of the order and filed the present appeal along with application for condonation of delay. However, no affidavit of said Advocate has been filed in support of the averments made in the application. No reason is also forthcoming as to why the applicants appellants were not following their case diligently.Another ground raised by the counsel for the applicants appellants for condonation of delay is that review application against the judgment in Pran Sukh's case (supra), arising out of the same acquisition is pending before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, whereas the fact remains that review Application has been filed by HSIIDC and further that this Court had decided first batch of cases arising out of the acquisition vide judgment dated 5.9.2008 in M /s Opera House Creations Pvt. Ltd. ' s case (supra). The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay was filed much after the decision in that case. A full Bench of this Court in Smt. Tara Wanti v. State of Haryana, (1994-2) PLR 761 opined that mere pendency of another appeal arising out of same acquisition cannot be held to be sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I do not find that the cause shown by the applicants-appellants for condonation of delay of 2,332 days in filing the appeal is sufficient.Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal as well as other applications are also dismissed.