Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pandit Achhru Ram Sharma … vs State Of Haryana And Another on 4 March, 2021CM-127-CI-2021 in/and
RFA-31-2021 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CM-127-CI-2021 in/and
RFA-31-2021 (O&M)
Date of decision: – 04.03.2021
Pandit Achhru Ram Sharma (deceased)
….Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and another
…..Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present:- Mr. Sushil K. Sharma, Advocate
for the applicant-appellant.
Ms. Rajni Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
(keeping in view the advance copy given).
****
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL)
CM-127-CI-2021
Present application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of
449 days in filing the present appeal.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that though,
State has not filed any reply to the said application, but submits that delay of 449
days in filing the appeal has not been explained as it should have been, hence
the same may kindly be rejected.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through
the record with their able assistance.
The plea of the applicant-appellant for the condonation of delay
1 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2021 23:22:14 :::
CM-127-CI-2021 in/and
RFA-31-2021 (O&M) -2-
has to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case. There is no
straightjacket formula for accepting or rejecting an application seeking
condonation of delay. The status of the parties, the reason given in the
application and also the other surrounding facts, need to be appreciated while
arriving at a decision whether to condone the delay or not. In the present case,
the Regular First Appeal filed by the similarly situated appellants have already
been allowed.
While considering the question of law on the condonation of
delay, in somewhat similar circumstances, the delay in filing first appeal has
been condoned by this Court while deciding CM-2617-CI-2020 in RFA
No.1226 of 2020 vide order dated 07.12.2020 where the delay in filing appeal
was of 1110 days. The relevant paragraph of the order passed by this Court
dated 07.12.2020 is as under:-
“No doubt, the present appeals have been filed after expiry of the
limitation prescribed under law. The accompanying appeals relates to the
acquisition proceedings wherein, the land of the applicant-appellants has
been acquired by the respondent-State. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India has settled the point with regard to the prayer seeking condonation of
delay in respect of the appeals arising out of the land acquistion matters.
While deciding Civil Appeal No.10799 of 2013, titled as Imrat Lal and
others Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and others, on 29.11.2013, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that a liberal approach should be
adopted while considering the application seeking condonation of delay in
respect of the land acquisition matters as villagers in our country are
mostly illiterate. The Court condoned the delay of 1110 days in filing the
appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The relevant paragraph
of the said judgment is as under:-
“13. We can take judicial notice of the fact that villagers in our
country are by and large illiterate and are not conversant with the
intricacies of law. They are usually guilded by their co-villagers, who are
familiar with the proceedings in the Courts or the advocates with whom
2 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2021 23:22:16 :::
CM-127-CI-2021 in/and
RFA-31-2021 (O&M) -3-
they get in touch for redressal of their grievance. Affidavits filed in support
of the applications for condonation of delay are usually drafted by the
advocates on the basis of half baked information made available by the
affected persons. Therefore, it the acquistiion matters involving claim for
awards of just compensation, the Court should adopt a liberal approach
and either grant time to the party to file better affidavit to explain delay or
suo motu take cognizance of the fact that large number of other similarly
situated persons who were affected by the determination of compensation
by the Land Acquisition Officer or the Reference Court have been granted
relief.
14. In Civil Appeal Nos. 5335-5336 of 2013 titled Samiyathal and
others Vs. Special Tahsildar and others decided on 05.07.2013, this Court
took cognizance of the fact that many landowners may not have been able
to seek intervention of this Court for grant of enhanced compensation due
to illiteracy, poverty and ignorance and issued direction that those who
have not filed special leave petition should be given enhanced
compensation. The relevant portion of the judgment passed in that case is
extracted below:
“We further direct the respondents and the State of Tamil Nadu to
pay the same amount of compensation to other landowners whose land was
acquired by notification dated 22.05.1191, but who may have on account
of ignorance, poverty and other similar handicaps, not been able to
approach the Reference Court or may not have been able to contest the
matter before the High Court and this Court. The needful be done in
respect of other landowners within a period of six months. This direction
has been given in exercise of the power vested in this Court under Article
142 of the Constitution.”
The similar application seeking condonation of delay in the land
acquisition matters came up for hearing before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India again in Civil Appeal No.6599-6601 of 2014, titled as Dhiraj
Singh (D) Tr. Lrs and others Vs. Haryana State and others, decided
on 21.07.2014 wherein after noticing the settled principle of law on the
issue, the delay of 12 years in filing the appeal against the award was
condoned and the compensation was enhanced. The relevant paragraph of
the said judgment is as under:-
“7. It is the case of the appellants that due to their financial weak
condition, they could not file the Letter Patent Appeals (LPAs) before the
3 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2021 23:22:16 :::
CM-127-CI-2021 in/and
RFA-31-2021 (O&M) -4-
Division Bench and on coming to know of the judgment dated 27.7.2005
rendered by the Division Bench, they also filed their appeals. However,
since there was delay in preferring these appeals, the High Court has
refused to codone the delay and dismissed the LPAs.
8. Against the orders passed by the High Court, the appellants have
filed these proceedings.
9. No doubt, there is a long delay in filing the appeals. However,
we find that it is a case of payment of compensation to these appellants
who were the land owners and which land was taken away by compulsory
acquisition. However, land owners whose lands were taken over by the
same notification, have been able to get the compensation @ Rs.200/- per
square yard whereas the compensation given to the appellants is Rs.101
per square yard for their entire land.
10. It is also not in dispute that the appellants are agriculturists.
Their averments that they could not prefer the LPAs because of their
financial weak condition has not been disputed by the respondents. We
find that in a similar situation, this Court had condoned the delay of 3240
days in the case of Market Committee, Hodal v. Krishan Murari and
Ors., 1996 (1) R.R.R. 420: 1996 (1) SCC 311. There are many other cases
cited by the appellants condoning the delay in similar circumstances.
11. In the matter of land acquisition where land of peasants is
acquired, a different approach has to be taken. These persons should not be
deprived of the reasonable compensation for their lands. If other similarly
situated land owners are given the compensation @ Rs.200/- square yard,
there is no reason to pay the compensation to the appellants at much lesser
rate. In this context, we would like to quote the following observations
from the judgment dated November 29, 2013 in the case of Imrat Lal
and others v. Land Acquisition Collector and others, (2012 (2) R.C.R.
(Civil) 437: Civil Appeal No.10799 of 2013).
“While we agree with Shri Narender Hooda that the averments
contained in the application for condonation of delay were extremely
vague and did not provide satisfactory explanation for the long delay of
1110 days, but it cannot be ignored that in identical matters another learned
Single Judge had granted relief to the landowners by enhancing the
compensation and this factor should not have been overlooked by the
learned Single Judge while deciding the application for condonation of
delay.
4 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2021 23:22:16 :::
CM-127-CI-2021 in/and
RFA-31-2021 (O&M) -5-
We can take judicial notice of the fact that villagers in our country
are by and large illiterate and are not conversant with the intricacies of law.
They are usually guided by their co-villagers, who are familiar with the
proceedings in this Courts or the advocates with whom they get in touch
for redressal of their grievance. Affidavits filed in support of the
applications for condonation of delay are usually drafted by the advocates
on the basis of half baked information made available by the affected
persons. Therefore, in the acquisition matters involving claim for award of
just compensation, the Court should adopt a liberal approach and either
grant time to the party to file better affidavit to explain delay or suo motu
take cognizance of the fact that large number of other similarly situated
persons who were affected by the determination of compensation by the
Land Acquisition Officer or the Reference Court have been granted relief.
In 2012 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 441: Civil Appeal Nos. 5335-5336 of 2013
titled Samiyathal and others v. Special Tahsildar and others decided
on 5.7.2013, this Court took cognizance of the fact that many landowners
may not have been able to seek intervention of this Court for grant of
enhanced compensation due to illiteracy, poverty and ignorance and issued
direction that those who have not filed special leave petition should be
given enhanced compensation.
The relevant portion of the judgment passed in that case is
extracted below:
“We further direct the respondents and the State of Tamil Nadu to
pay the same amount of compensation to other landowners whose land was
acquired by notification dated 22.05.1991, but who may have on account
of ignorance, poverty and other similar handicaps, not been able to
approach the Reference Court or may not have been able to contest the
matter before the High Court and this Court. The needful be done in
respect of other landowners within a period of six months. This direction
has been given in exercise of the power vested in this Court under Article
142 of the Constitution.”
In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed, the
impugned order is set aside and the delay in filing RFA No.5477/2011 by
the appellants is condoned.
12. In fact, in a matter arising out of the same notification, in
Civil Appeal Nos.617-619 of 2012, this Court had rendered a judgment
dated 17.1.2012 condoning the delay of 4644 days and enhancing the
5 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2021 23:22:16 :::
CM-127-CI-2021 in/and
RFA-31-2021 (O&M) -6-
compensation to Rs.200/- per square yard. A perusal of the counter
affidavit filed by the respondents makes it clear that rate of Rs.200/- per sq.
Yard fixed in Horam’s case (LPA No.920 of 1994) has been upheld by this
Court by dismissing the special leave petition against the said judgment. A
perusal of the said order makes it clear that it relied upon dismissal orders
passed in various other special leave petitions whereby the aforesaid rate
had been upheld.
13. Thus, in almost all cases, the rate of Rs.200/- per sq. Yard
has been applied by the High Court and this Court.
14. The appellants are identically situated and there is no reason
to meet out a different treatment to them. We also note that, while in these
cases, the High Court had refused to condone the delay and dismissed the
LPAs of the appellants, other LPAs were allowed by the High Court itself
by condoning the delay of the same magnitude in the same circumstances.
15. Equities can be balanced by denying the appellants’ interest
for the period for which they did not approach the Court. The substantive
rights of the appellants should not be allowed to be defeated on technical
grounds by taking hyper technical view of self-imposed limitations. In the
matter of compensation for land acquisition, we are of the view that
approach of the Court has to be pragmatic and no pedantic.
16. The principles regarding condonation of delay particularly
in land acquisition matters, have been enunciated in Collector (LA) v.
Katiji, 1987 (2) SCC 107 where it is stated in para 3 as under
“3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting
Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts
to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on “merits”. The
expression “sufficient cause” employed by the legislature is adequately
elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which
sub-serves the ends of justice- that being the life-purpose for the existence
of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has
been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters institued in this
Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the
other courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach adopted on
principle as it is realized that:
“1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an
appeal late.
2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter
6 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2021 23:22:16 :::
CM-127-CI-2021 in/and
RFA-31-2021 (O&M) -7-
being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated.
As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that
a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.
3. “Every day’s delay must be explained” does not mean that a
pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour’s delay, every
seconds delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense
pragmatic manner.
4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are
pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be
preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in justice
being done because of a non-deliberate delay.
5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned
deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala
fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he
runs a serious risk.
6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account
of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is
capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.”
17. The aforesaid judgment was followed by this Court in DDA
v. Bhola Nath Sharma, 2011 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 820: 2011 (2) SCC 54,
which was also a matter concerning land acquisition.
18. We, accordingly, allow these appeals. Impugned orders of
the High Court are set aside. Delay in filing the LPAs is condoned. It is
held that the appellants shall be entitled to enhanced compensation @
Rs.200/- per square yard. However, for the period of delay in approaching
the High Court by way of LPAs, in all these cases, no interest should be
paid to them. Compensation shall be worked out accordingly and paid to
the appellants within a period of three months from today.”
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant-appellants
states that the applicant-appellants are ready to forego interest for the
period of delay, hence no prejudice will be caused to the respondents, if the
delay is condoned.
Keeping in view the facts as well as law enumerated hereinbefore,
the applications seeking condonation of delay are allowed subject to the
condition that the applicant-appellants will not be entitled for the interest
on the enhanced compensation equivalent to the period of delay, which has
been condoned by the Court today.”
7 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2021 23:22:16 :::
CM-127-CI-2021 in/and
RFA-31-2021 (O&M) -8-
Keeping in view the averments made in the application and the
settled principle of law noticed hereinbefore, prayer for condonation of delay in
the present case is squarely covered in favour of the appellant, the application is
allowed and delay of 449 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.
RFA-31-2021 (O&M)
Learned counsel for the parties agree that the present Regular First
Appeal is covered by the decision of this Court in RFA No.1817 of 2019 titled
as ‘The Akash Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd.-II Vs. State
of Haryana & others’, decided on 27.05.2020.
Keeping in view the said aspect, the present Regular First Appeal
is also disposed of in the same terms as in RFA No.1817 of 2019 titled as ‘The
Akash Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd.-II Vs. State of
Haryana & others’, decided on 27.05.2020.
As the main appeal is disposed of, CM-126-CI-2021 stands
infructuous. ( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI )
March 04, 2021 JUDGE
naresh.k
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes
Whether reportable? No
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2021 23:22:16 :::
Comments