SAHIB SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Financial Commissioner, Haryana vide his order dated December 2, 1968 held that the respondent land owner Ram Krishan, who is a displaced person, was entitled to a permissible area of 50 Standard Acres instead of 100 Ordinary Acres (mentioned as S.A. and O.A. in the impugned orders and hereafter). The appellants, who claimed to be the tenants on the land challenged this order by filing civil writ petition No. 465 of 1969. This writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on July 20, 1981 on the ground that the legal representatives of the deceased respondent had not been impleaded. Vide order dated April 26, 1984. Hon'ble the Supreme Court set aside the order of High Court and remanded the case for decision on merits. The petition was, accordingly, listed before a learned Single Judge on December 5, 1984. It was, however, dismissed in default. The appellants moved an application for restoration of the case. Mr. R.P. Jagga, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants. Vide order dated July 26, 1986, the writ petition was restored. The case was then listed before a learned Single Judge. No one appeared on behalf of the writ petitioners (the present appellants). The learned Single Judge vide his judgement dated October 21, 1992 dismissed the writ petition. An appeal against this judgement was filed in this court on January 19, 1993. An objection was raised by the Registry that the appeal was barred by limitation. Consequently, an application for condonation of delay viz. C.M. No. 625 of 1993 as also an application for bringing on record the legal representatives of appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3, viz. C.M. No. 624 of 1993 were filed. Replies to these applications had been filed on behalf of the contesting respondents.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the Parties. Mr. R.C. Dogra has submitted that the appellants or their predecessors-in-interest, who were parties in the writ petition, were not given any actual date notice for hearing... after remand from Supreme Court of India and the writ petition was decided in their absence. "He has further pointed out that the present appeal has been filed with due diligence after the appellants had gained knowledge of the judgement when "respondent-successor proclaimed in village on 16th January, 1993 regarding the decision..." On the other hand, Mr. M.L. Sarin, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 5 to 12, has pointed out that no sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of delay. He has emphasised that counsel had appeared on behalf of the appellants after the case had been dismissed in default on December 5, 1984. He has pointed out that an application for restoration of the writ petition having been filed there was no necessity for the issue of actual date notice to the appellants. He has further pointed out that the learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition on October 21, 1992 and an application for the supply of a certified copy had been filed on the same day and that the copy which was prepared on November 1, 1992 was actually issued on November 25, 1992. He points out that this very copy has been produced by the appellants with their appeal. In this situation, learned counsel submits that the appellants had knowledge of the decision of this court on October 21, 1992 when an application for the issue of a certified copy was filed and that the plea taken on their behalf of explaining the delay cannot be accepted.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the plea taken on behalf of the respondents is correct. It has been categorically stated in the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that the writ petition had been dismissed in default on December 5, 1984. An application for restoration was filed on behalf of the appellants. They were thus aware of the pendency of the writ petition in the High Court and had engaged a counsel to appear on their behalf. Consequently, it was not necessary to issue any actual date notice to them. It is further clear that the application for the supply of a certified copy had been filed on October 21, 1992 when the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. In such a situation, the plea raised by the appellants that they came to know of the decision of the learned Single Judge on January 16, 1993 does not appear to be tenable. In such a situation, we are of the view that no sufficient cause for condonation of delay has been made out.