TARA WANTI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether a land-owner whose land has been acquired by a particular notification can seek condonation of undue and unexplained delay on the short ground that another appeal out of same acquisition is pending in this Court or should the application of such a land-owner be dismissed by the Court on the ground that another appeal out of same notification has been decided by a higher Court on merits? is the question of law referred to us for authoritative pronouncement.

(2.) The facts of the cases as noticed in Regular First Appeal No. 148 of 1993 and C.M. No. 207 C of 1993 are that the State of Haryana vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the 'Act') acquired the land situated in the revenue estate of Darra Kalan, District Kurukshetra for the purpose of development and utilization of the same for establishment of an urban estate. Regular First Appeal No. 441 of 1991 filed by some of the claimants is admittedly pending adjudication in this Court. The appellant-applicant, in the instant case, sought the condonation of delay of 11 years in filing the appeal on the basis of the judgment of this Court in Raghbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (1990) 2 Cur LJ 97 wherein the delay in filing the appeal was condoned on the ground of pendency of other appeals arising out of the same notification. The learned single Judge having thoughtfully considered the rival contentions raised in this case came to the conclusion that as the question of law raised was likely to affect large number of cases, it should be authoritatively pronounced by the larger Bench.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-applicant has contended that the law laid down in Raghbir Singh's case (supra) was based upon the appreciation of different provisions of the Act and requires no modification or reconsideration. He has particularly relied upon the provisions of Section 28A of the Act in support of his contention. Section 28A of the Act provides: