Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. - (1.) This is landowners appeal challenging the impugned award of the reference Court on the ground that market value of the acquired land in question has been determined at a lower rate.
(2.) There is delay of 633 days in filing this appeal. Application for condoning the aforesaid delay has also been filed along with this appeal. The relevant averments made in the said application reads thus:- "1. That the appellants are filing the accompanying regular first appeal against the award dated 30.4.2009 passed by the learned Reference Court. 2. That tough the award was announced on 30.4.2009 yet certified copy thereof was applied on 19.4.2011, which was prepared and delivered on 21.4.2011.RFA No.4088 of 2011 3. That when the reference was filed by the appellants was decided on 30.4.2009 along with the connected reference applications, the appellants were under a bonafide belief that the present land is likely to be released from acquisition as a number of writ petitions were pending decision before this Honble Court. Not only that, the Developers had already purchased land from the landowners and they also intended to purchase the land from the appellants. The appellants actually were informed by the Developers that the entire land under acquisition in the present case is likely to be released and there would be no use to file the appeal in this Honble Court against the judgment dated 30.4.2009 passed by the learned reference Court. It is also pertinent to mention here that the appellants have not received the amount of compensation awarded by the learned reference Court as they were under the bona fide belief that the land is likely to be released and there would be no use to get the enhanced compensation otherwise the appellants shall have to return the same to the acquiring authority if the said land is released from acquisition. 4. That now the Land Acquisition Collector, Panchkula has issued proclamation that the possession of the land would be taken as the land is not going to be released at any cost. Thus, the appellants have now come to know that the land is likely to be acquired and not going to be released. Therefore, the appellants are filing the present appeal along with this application for condonation of delay of 633 days in filing the appeal as the delay is not at all 2RFA No.4088 of 2011 intentional but has occurred as per the reasons mentioned above. 5. That the connected appeals against the same award passed by the learned reference Court have not been listed so far. Not only that, even a number of writ petitions challenging the acquisition by the landowners are also pending decision in this Honble Court as well as in the Honble Supreme Court. 6. That since the connected appeals are pending decision and have not been decided so far, if the delay in filing the appeal is not condoned, the appellants are likely to lose the enhanced compensation to be awarded by this Honble Court. It is also pertinent to mention here that the Court actually has not awarded adequate compensation and confirmed the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector except holding that the claimants would be entitled to the benefit of notification dated 7.12.2007. Otherwise, in the present case, the adjoining land has already been acquired in the year 1995 where amount of compensation of '7,26,000/- has already been awarded by this Honble Court whereas in the present case the land was acquired vide notification dated 24.7.2003. Thus, the amount of compensation is likely to be increased by this Honble Court. 7. That if the delay of 633 days in filing the appeal is not condoned, the appellants would suffer an irreparable loss as they would be awarded only inadequate compensation."
(3.) A perusal of the aforesaid averments would show that the appellants were very much in the knowledge of passing of the 3RFA No.4088 of 2011 award of the reference Court dated 30.4.2009, vide which, their reference application, along with several other reference applications filed by other landowners was decided. It is also not in dispute that many of such other landowners have already filed regular first appeals against the impugned award. However, the appellants have averred that they were under a bona fide belief that their land shall be released from the acquisition, as a number writ petitions were pending before this Court challenging the said acquisition. This averment again confirms the fact that the appellants were very much in the knowledge that for getting their land released, they have to challenge the notification for acquisition by filing writ petition. Inspite of the aforesaid fact, the appellants have failed to either challenge the impugned award or the acquisition proceedings before the appropriate Court and kept quite. Thus, the explanation submitted by them for condoning such a huge delay of 633 days cannot be accepted. Therefore, prayer for condoning the delay of 633 days in filing this appeal is rejected.;