RAGHUBANSH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHOULD the delay of more than 12 years be condoned? The learned Single Judge has exercised his discretion and declined the request made by the appellant. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge the appellant has filed the present appeal. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) ON July 9, 1973, the State of Haryana issued a notification Under Section 4 for acquisition of land measuring 137 acres. On November 5, 1973, the Collector gave his award. The aggrieved landowners including the present appellant sought reference Under Section 18. Ultimately on January 21, 1978, the Additional District Judge, enhanced the compensation. The present appellant did not file any appeal against the award of the Additional District Judge. However, some other landowners filed R. F. A. No. 581 of 1978. Vide judgment dated August 5, 1985, this Court enhanced the compensation of Rs. 317. 50 per Maria. Thereafter on October 3, 1985, the appellant filed an application Under Section 28-A for the grant of similar compensation to him. Averring that the application was not being decided, the appellant claims to have filed C. W. P. No. 15822 of 1989 in this Court. This petition was dismissed by this Court on December 5, 1989. S. L. P. (Civil) No. 1924 of 1990 was also dismissed vide orders dated April 23, 1990. Thereafter on May 4, 1990 the appellant filed an appeal in this Court along with an application Under Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The learned Single Judge found that there was not sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Hence this appeal.

(3.) WE have perused the application Under Section 5 filed by the appellant at the time of the presentation of the appeal to this Court. In this application it has been, inter alia, averred in paragraph 4 that "there is delay of about 12 years 10 days in preferring the appeal. This delay has been caused due to the financial constraints and lack of legal knowledge on the part of the applicant. The applicant in his own wisdom thought that he will be entitled to the higher compensation if so determined in the case of other claimants as the State is bound to grant the same treatment to its citizen even if he has not resorted to the remedy of appeal etc. " There is not even a suggestion that there was wrong advice tendered by any counsel. After this application had been dismissed by the order under appeal, the appellant has averred in the grounds of appeal that he did not file an appeal "as he was advised that he can get the compensation redetermined according to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the connected appeals by moving an application Under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act. " This is a new story introduced by the appellant. There appears to be a conscious effort to improve upon the earlier pleadings. The attitude of the appellant is not straight forward.