SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(P&H) 1572

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Lakhmi & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Haryana & Ors. - Respondents
RFA No. 2068 of 2021(O&M)
Decided On : 22-09-2021

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Ashish Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellants, for the Appellant; Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, AAG, Haryana, for the Respondent

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellant must provide a reasonable and plausible explanation, absence of negligence or malafides, and legal and adequate reasons to condone the delay in filing an appeal under the 1963 Act.

Headnote:

Delay in Filing Appeal - Land Acquisition - 1963 Act - [1963 Act, Section 5] - The court considered the sufficiency of cause for delay in filing the appeal under the 1963 Act. It emphasized the need for a reasonable and plausible explanation, absence of negligence or malafides, and the presence of legal and adequate reasons to condone the delay. The court held that the law of limitation must be applied with rigor and inconvenience is not a decisive factor in interpreting the statute. The appellant's failure to provide sufficient reasons led to the dismissal of the appeal.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants sought condonation of a 2175-day delay in filing a regular first appeal related to the compulsory acquisition of their land. They claimed lack of awareness about the award, old age, and the impact of the corona pandemic as reasons for the delay.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellants failed to disclose sufficient reasons to condone the nearly 6-year delay. It emphasized the need for a reasonable and plausible explanation, absence of negligence or malafides, and the presence of legal and adequate reasons to condone the delay.

Issues: The main issue was whether the court should condone the delay in filing the appeal without sufficient cause as required under the 1963 Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant must provide a reasonable and plausible explanation, absence of negligence or malafides, and legal and adequate reasons to condone the delay. It emphasized that the law of limitation must be applied with rigor and inconvenience is not a decisive factor in interpreting the statute.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the appeal.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - The appellants pray for condoning the delay of 2175 days (nearly six years) in filing the regular first appeal. The appellants were the owner of the land which was compulsorily acquired by the respondent(State) vide the various awards passed by the Land Acquisition Collector in the year 2010. Various owners including the appellants filed applications for referring the matter to the Court for determination of the compensation. On being referred, the Additional District Judge, Sonipat, enhanced the compensation on 31.01.2014. The various other owners filed the appeals before the High Court, whereas the appellants did not opt to file any appeal.

The High Court decided the appeals filed by the various owners on 16.02.2016, while further upward revising the market value. The appellants have filed this appeal on 07.09.2021. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the application seeking condonation of delay reads as under:-

“2. That the award in the present case was passed on 31.01.2014 by the Additional District Judge, Sonepat but the applicants were not aware about the passing of the award, as the appellant no.1 is too much old aged person and the appellant no.2 to 4 not residing in the village now due to their employment. The applicants came to know about the award passed by ld. Additional District Judge, Sonepat in the year 2016 when they visited the village in a marriage function. Thereafter, the applicants and other co-claimants i.e. legal heirs of Sabha Chand decided that they would file the appeal jointly. Later on the legal heirs of Sabha Chand filed appeal about which applicants not apprised despite the fact that applicants/appellants were under the bonafide impression that they would file the appeal with other co- claimants.

When the appellant no.2 visited house of his sister at Rohtak where he met Sh. Inderjeet Singh son of Late Sh. Sabha Chand also, who apprised the appellant no.2 that the y have approached Hon'ble High Court by filing the appeal i.e. RFA No.3240 of 2016, against the award dated 31.01.2014 and the Hon'ble High Court disposed off their appeal vide order dated 10.11.2017 as the same was covered with the judgment dated 16.02.2016 passed in RFA No.3397 of 2014 titled as Kartar Singh & Ors vs. State of Haryana & Ors.. Thereafter appellant no.2 collected the photocopy of order dated 10.11.2017 and award dated 31.01.2014 in the month of February 2020 from said co-claimant Sh. Inderjit Singh son of Late Sh. Sabha Chand.

3. That thereafter, the applicant Ishwar Singh Malik informed the other claimants, then decided to file the appeal before the Hon'ble High Court and as such contacted his counsel in the month of March 2020 for filing the appeal in the Hon'ble High Court. The applicants/appellants were under the process of filing the appeal but unfortunately due to corona pandemic, lockdown declared in the month of March 2020 because of which appellants could not filed the appeal during the period 2020-21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also ordered in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 to condone the delay for the period of corona pandemic till further orders. The appellants again contacted their counsel in the month of August 2021 for filing of the present appeal in view of the fresh guidelines issued for filing the matters before this Hon'ble Court.

4. That the appeals in the connected matters have already been filed and has been decided vide judgment dated 16.02.2016 in RFA No.3397 of 2014 titled as Kartar Singh & Ors. vs. State of Haryana and others and the appeal filed in the present LAC No.151 by the other claimants namely Ram Singh and Chhote Lal has also been decided on dated 05.04.2016. Further the RFA No.3240 of 2016 filed by Legal Heirs of late Sh. Sabha Chand in the present LAC Case No.151 decided by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 10.11.2017 being covered by judgment passed in RFA NO.3397 of 2014.

The present appeal also covered by the judgment dated 16.02.2016 passed in RFA No.3397

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top