Citations: Imrat Lal & Others Vs Land Acquisition Collector & Ors., 2015 (2) RCR (Civil) 437
Date of Judgement: 05/09/2011
Case No.: CM no. 12357-CI of 2011 and RFA No. 5077 of 2011
Case Type: Civil Appeal.
Appellant(s): Imrat Lal and others.
Respondent(s): Land Acquisition Collector and others.
Bench: Hon’ble Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg.
Court: High Court of Punjab and Haryana
Statutes Referred:
- Limitation Act, 1963; Section: 5.
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Section: 4(1), 54
Cases Referred:
- Sudama & Others Vs State of Haryana (RFA No. 1824 of 2006)
Facts:
- On 15.05.1997, through a notification issued by the Government of Haryana under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, land measuring 193.1 acres situated in Wazirabad Tehsil was acquired.
- Appellant’s land was also a part of this large piece of the acquired land. The land acquisition was done for the development of Sector 52 to be used for commercial, accommodation, and institutional purposes in Gurgaon.
- On 3.05.2000, an order was passed by the land acquisition collector where the market value of that acquired land at Rs.12,00, 000 per acre for ‘Chahi’, for Allabarani Rs.9,60, 000 per acre, for Bhood land Rs 8,40,000 per acre and Rs. 7, 20,000 per acre for Banjar land.
- Aggrieved by the order of the Land Acquisition Collector, the Appellants filed an application in the court seeking a determination of the amount of reimbursement under Section 18 of the Act.
- After considering the produced evidence, the District Court ordered for the compensation of Rs. 717 per sq. yard along with other additional benefits to the appellants.
- Against the order of the District Court, an appeal was filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Punjab & Haryana High Court on 1.10.2010 settled the dispute in the case titled: Sudama & Others Vs State of Haryana (2010), enhancing the damages to Rs 1,216 per sq. yards.
- After about three years of the settlement of the case by the High Court, the Appellants again filed an application in RFA No.5477/2011 in the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking further enhancement of compensation amount along with CM No.12357- CI/2011 seeking condonation for delay of 1,110 days.
Issues Involved:
- Whether the appeal filed by the Appellants (landowners herein) under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 seeking relief for the enhancement of compensation be maintained?
- Whether the application seeking condonation of delay of 1, 110 days be granted in this case under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963?
Contention of Appellants:
- The Appellants contended that the other Appellants had given their brief well in advance to the claimants to file before the High Court.
- When the Appellants contacted the claimants to figure out the status of the case and inquire about the copy of the judgement, they later came to know that no appeal was registered or filed on their behalf.
- Due to the failure of claimants to file an appeal, there is an inordinate delay of 1,110 days in applying to the Honorable High Court.
- The delay caused in filing the appeal because of the above-stated reasons is bonafide and forgetful. Thus, it is pleaded before the High Court that this appeal is kindly allowed and the application seeking condonation of delay be allowed for the sake of justice.
Contention of Respondent:
- The respondents contended that there was an inordinate delay of 1110 days. The delay caused was negligent and without any reasonable excuse.
- Furthermore, the reason stated by the Appellants that they had given their brief to the other co-Appellants to file and that the Appellants were unaware of the status of the case seems unsatisfactory and improper.
- The respondent asserted that it is hard to believe that the appellant whose land has been acquired will not pay heed in the matter.
- Thus, the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation under Section 54of the Land Acquisition Act is not maintainable.
Judgement:
- In this case, the High Court held that, in the absence of sufficient and reasonable cause of delay by the Appellants in filing the appeal, the prayer for condonation could not be allowed.
- The pleading made in the application specifies that there was negligence and carelessness on the part of the appellant to file the appeal and that the Appellants have only paid heed when the High Court has enhanced their compensation in previously made applications.
- The explanation regarding the delay is not proper to be allowed. With the prayer of condonation rejected, the appeal seeking compensation stands dismissed as it is time-barred.
As the delay has not been condoned, therefore, the appeal stands dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi:
- The contentions given by the Appellants were not satisfactory and reasonable.
- Furthermore, the Appellants have failed to mention the names or other information about the claimants to whom they have relied on their briefs to file before the court.
- Also, there has been gross negligence at the end of the Appellants by not enquiring about their case. It is a bit hard to believe that an appellant whose land was acquired pays no heed about his matter from the other claimants for such a long period.
- Therefore, the delay herein cannot be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Conclusion:
To conclude, we can say that the appeal being time-barred was dismissed by the High Court in this case. Due to the lack of sufficient explanation for the delay, neither was the inordinate delay of 1,110 days condoned nor did the court further enhance the raised compensation.
Drafted By: Shivani Tiwary, School of Law DAVV.
Edited by: Aashima Kakkar, Associate Editor, Law Insider
Published On: October 5, 2021 at 10:55 IST