Punjab-Haryana High Court
Girdhari Lal And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Another on 14 December, 2022
RFA-1037-2022 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
131
RFA-1037-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 14.12.2022
GIRDHARI LAL AND ANR. ..Appellants
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL Present: Mr. Suresh Ahlawat, Advocate for the landowners.
Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate for HSIIDC.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral) CM-2571-CI-2022 The prayer is to condone the delay of 3676 days (more than 10 years) in filing the appeal. A batch of 17 reference petitions filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the '1894 Act') including the case of the appellant was disposed of on 15.01.2010 by a common judgment passed by the Reference Court (hereinafter referred to as the 'RC'). Various other landowners had filed regular first appeals before the High Court which were allowed on 16.01.2019 while enhancing the market value from Rs.20,00,000/- to Rs.70,00,000/- per acre along with all the statutory benefits. This appeal has been filed by appellants on 23.04.2022. While filing the application for condonation of delay, the landowners have stated as under:-
"2. That the appellants are simplicitor and rustic villager is not having any intricate knowledge about the Hon'ble High Court and do not know much about the court 1 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 21-12-2022 20:34:49 ::: RFA-1037-2022 (O&M) -2-
procedure especially the law of limitation. Now, the appellants have come to know from the co-villagers in the third week of May, 2022 that the above said matter has decided by the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 16.1.2019 and compensation has been enhanced and awarded a compensation of Rs.70 lacs per acre from Rs.20 lacs per acre along with other statutory benefits to the land owners.
3. That on inquiry from the land Acquisition Collector, it was also informed by the officials that the enhanced compensation shall be given only those land owners who have filed the appeal in this Hon'ble High Court and their appeals have been allowed. After coming to know this, the appellants have approached their counsel at lower court and collected the documents of this case through their counsel.
4. That after collecting all relevant documents from their counsel and arranging the amount to meet with the expenses for filing the appeal and payment of counsel fees. He has contacted the present counsel on 21.5.2022 for filing the appeal in this Hon'ble Court against the award dated 15.1.2010. However, it was informed by the present counsel that the appeal had already become barred by limitation. But on the instructions of the appellants, the present appeal was prepared and is being filed in this Hon'ble High Court. In this way, delay of 3676 days has been occurred in filing appeal."
It is evident that the landowners have failed to furnish any sufficient explanation for condoning the huge delay of more than 10 years in filing the appeal. The appellants are residents of District Gurugram which is a part of the National Capital Region. The appellants have not disclosed any reason for not filing the appeal in the year 2010 when their co-villagers filed their respective appeals. The appellants did not even file the appeal immediately after 16.01.2019 i.e. when the High Court decided the appeals filed by the other co-villagers. They have not disclosed the name of the co-
villagers who informed them about the escalation.
It is evident that the appellants are now making an effort to get the enhanced market value after knowing that there is an increase in the market value assessed by the Court.
2 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 21-12-2022 20:34:49 :::
RFA-1037-2022 (O&M) -3-
The aforesaid issue has been examined in detail in Regular First Appeal No.673 of 2021, titled as "Gurmeet Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another", decided on 09.08.2021.
The relevant discussion is as under:-
"5. Now, the question, which arises is as to whether the Court should condone the delay without looking into the reasons given in the application? The 1963 Act is a statute of repose. The Act provides that the appellant is required to explain sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. No doubt, the Supreme Court has held in various judgments including the judgment in Ningappa Thotappa Angadi (supra) that efforts must be made to condone the delay in order to do substantive justice. However, at the same time, it is also the duty of the appellant to make out a case for condoning the delay. The Court cannot be expected to condone the delay without looking into the sufficiency of the cause shown. To show sufficient cause, the appellant is required to give reasonable and plausible explanation. He is also expected to show that the delay is not due to his negligence or inaction. Further, he is also required to show that his conduct does not suffer from malafides.
6. At this stage, it important to examine the relevant case laws. In Balwant Singh (Dead) v. Jagdish Singh and Others (2010) 8 SCC 685, while examining the application for condoning the delay in the application for bringing on legal representatives, it was held as under :-
"26. The law of limitation is a substantive law and has definite consequences on the right and obligation of a party to arise.
These principles should be adhered to and applied appropriately depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case. Once a valuable right, as accrued in favour of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both parties equally. Then alone the ends of justice can be achieved. If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair 3 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 21-12-2022 20:34:49 ::: RFA-1037-2022 (O&M) -4-
to deprive the other party of a valuable right that has accrued to it in law as a result of his acting vigilantly.
27. The application filed by the applicants lack in details. Even the averments made are not correct and ex-facie lack bona fide. The explanation has to be reasonable or plausible, so as to persuade the Court to believe that the explanation rendered is not only true, but is worthy of exercising judicial discretion in favour of the applicant. If it does not specify any of the enunciated ingredients of judicial pronouncements, then the application should be dismissed. On the other hand, if the application is bona fide and based upon true and plausible explanations, as well as reflect normal behaviour of a common prudent person on the part of the applicant, the Court would normally tilt the judicial discretion in favour of such an applicant. Liberal construction cannot be equated with doing injustice to the other party.
28 to 33 XXXX XXXX XXXX
XXXX
34. Liberal construction of the expression 'sufficient cause' is intended to advance substantial justice which itself presupposes no negligence or inaction on the part of the applicant, to whom want of bona fide is imputable. There can be instances where the Court should condone the delay; equally there would be cases where the Court must exercise its discretion against the applicant for want of any of these ingredients or where it does not reflect 'sufficient cause' as understood in law.
The expression 'sufficient cause' implies the presence of legal and adequate reasons. The word 'sufficient' means adequate enough, as much as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. It embraces no more than that which provides a plentitude which, when done, suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the light of existing circumstances and when viewed from the reasonable standard of practical and cautious men. The sufficient cause should be such as it would persuade the Court, in exercise of its judicial discretion, to treat the 4 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 21-12-2022 20:34:49 ::: RFA-1037-2022 (O&M) -5-
delay as an excusable one. These provisions give the Courts enough power and discretion to apply a law in a meaningful manner, while assuring that the purpose of enacting such a law does not stand frustrated"
7.Similarly in Basawaraj and Another v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer ( 2013)14 SCC 81, the Supreme Court, while dealing with a case arising from determination of the market value of the acquired land, held as under;-
"9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word "sufficient" embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, "sufficient cause" means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has "not acted diligently" or "remained inactive". However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the Court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose. (See: Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. v. Bhootnath Banerjee & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 1336; Lala Matadin v. A.
Narayanan, AIR 1970 SC 1953; Parimal v. Veena @ Bharti AIR 2011 SC 1150; and Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai AIR 2012 SC 1629).
5 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 21-12-2022 20:34:49 :::
RFA-1037-2022 (O&M) -6-
10. XXXX XXXX XXXX
XXXX
11. The expression "sufficient cause" should be given a liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done, but only so long as negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides cannot be imputed to the party concerned, whether or not sufficient cause has been furnished, can be decided on the facts of a particular case and no straitjacket formula is possible. (Vide: Madanlal v. Shyamlal, AIR 2002 SC 100; and Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Ors. v. Gobardhan Sao & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 1201.) It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. "A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation." The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim "dura lex sed lex" which means "the law is hard but it is the law", stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that, "inconvenience is not" a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute.
13 and 14. XXXX XXXX XXXX
XXXX
15. The law on the issue can be
summarized to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the "sufficient cause"
which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bonafide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be 6 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 21-12-2022 20:34:49 ::: RFA-1037-2022 (O&M) -7-
justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature"
8. Similarly while deciding the power of the Land Acquisition Officer to condone the delay in filing an application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, the Supreme Court, in Popat Bahiru Govardhane and Others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another (2013) 10 SCC 765, held as under:-
"16. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statue so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim dura lex sed lex which means "the law is hard but it is the law", stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that, "inconvenience is not" a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute. "A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A court has no power to ignore that provision to relief what it considers a distress resulting from its operation".
9. In the present case, the reason put forth for seeking condonation of delay, is factually incorrect. The appellant is the resident of village Saketri, which is located on the outskirts of tricity of Chandigarh- Panchkula- Mohali. The land of the appellant and certain other owners was acquired by issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on 16.03.1999. The Land Acquisition Collector, Panchkula, had passed the award on 09.10.2003. Since then the appellant has been litigating in the Courts for re- determination of the market value. The appellant was also represented by a counsel before the Reference Court.
7 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 21-12-2022 20:34:49 :::
RFA-1037-2022 (O&M) -8-
In these circumstances, this Bench is of the considered view that the delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned without looking at the reasons. No doubt, it would not be appropriate for the Court to insist upon an explanation for the delay of each day. However, liberal view cannot be extended to nullify/ignore the law of limitation. If the argument of learned counsel is accepted, it would render Section 5 of the 1963 Act redundant. In this case, the appellant is a fence sitter. He now wants to take the benefit, only because the result has been announced and made final. He wants to enjoy the fruits not earned by his hard work by merely filing an appeal.
10. As far as the judgment in Ningappa Thotappa Angadi ( Supra) is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, with greatest respect, does not lay down that even if the application seeking condonation of delay does not disclose sufficient, explanatory and credible reasons or where the court finds that the application lacks bonafide on part of the applicant, still the delay must be condoned."
Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find it appropriate to condone the colossal delay of more than 10 years in filing the appeal, particularly when the other connected appeals already stand decided before filing of this appeal.
Hence, the application for condoning the colossal delay of more than 10 years is dismissed.
Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.
December 14th, 2022 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Ay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 21-12-2022 20:34:49 :::