- (1.) Vide this judgment, I intend to dispose of CM No. 7947-CI of 2012 in/and RFA No. 4055 of 2012 titled as Krishan Chand and others vs. State of Punjab and others and CM No. 7951-CI of 2012 in/and RFA N0. 4056 of 2012 titled as Krishan Chand and others vs. State of Punjab and others, as both appeals have arisen out of the same notification. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from RFA No. 4055 of 2012.
(2.) CM No. 7947 CI of 2012 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 12 years and 350 days in late filing of the appeal on the ground that land of the appellants in the same village was acquired by the same department twice i.e. vide notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 18.9.1985 and dated 6/7.10.1989 and out of the same piece of land and qua earlier acquisition, the reference court passed the award on 17.5.1991, while in the instant case the award was dated 14.2.1998, that appeals were preferred in the court below through counsel and that during the pendency of the appeals, one of the main decree holder i.e. Dwarki Devi expired, the appellants were under the impression that appeals had been duly filed before the Hon'ble High Court and that the same were pending adjudication, that they were rustic farmers residing in rural areas and it was only when for the first time their appeal was decided on 18.8.2010 and on receipt of the message from their counsel on 18.1.2011, they apprehended that their appeals had been decided. Thereafter, they contacted counsel and got certified copy of order dated 18.8.2010 in RFA No. 1735 of 1991, in which the parties names were absolutely common, as in the case in hand and on enquiring about the fate of their other appeal, it was learnt that those appeals had not been filed. The aforesaid appeal was arising out of notification dated 18.9.1985 and ultimately the appellants after engaging counsel, filed appeal before the Hon'ble High Court. Therefore, the delay of 12 years and 350 days in filing the appeal was neither deliberate nor intentional, that it was settled law that in case of mistake on the part of the counsel, litigant should not suffer, particularly, in land acquisition cases where the farmers are to get actual price of their own acquired land at the relevant time and nothing more and nothing else and that is why, Parliament in its wisdom incorporated Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") with the intention that even if the claimants never filed reference under Section 18 of the Act, on the basis of the award arising out of the same acquisition, passed by the reference court, he can get compensation redetermined/get the same rate fixed by the competent court and further more if the enhancement is by the superior court then Section 28 (A) (3) comes to their rescue. Reliance has also been placed upon the decision of this Court in case titled as Dilbag Singh vs. Collector Land Acquisition, 2002 131 PunLR 775, following the judgment Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another vs. Mst. Katiji and others, 1987 AIR(SC) 1353 which laid down guidelines for adopting liberal approach in order to do substantial justice, that pendency of similar appeal arising out of the same acquisition constituted a valid ground for condonation of delay. It has further been mentioned in the application that the acquisition/determining of compensation was subject matter of regular first appeal, which was pending adjudication and that the same had not been decided till date and that one of the appeals was RFANo. 2458 of 1996 titled as Baldev Singh vs. State of Punjab. In the light of the aforementioned position, prayer was made for condonation of delay of 12 years and 350 days in filing the appeal. Reply by way of affidavit of Sh. Jatinder Singh, Collector, Land Acquisition, Drainage Circle, Patiala, has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 to the application seeking condonation of delay.
(3.) In the reply, stand of the respondents is that the delay in filing the appeal was highly belated, that the applicants had failed to explain the delay with sufficient reasons, therefore the said application deserved to be dismissed, that in reality the applicants never filed objections against the award dated 17.5.1991 passed by the reference court and now the applicants were concocting a story for the purpose of seeking condonation of delay, to say that the applicants were under the impression that the appeals were pending adjudication before the Court, was totally wrong. The applicants never filed appeal against the award dated 17.5.1991 and filed appeal only qua award arising out of notification dated 6/7.10.1989 which was decided on 18.8.2010. In the reply, it has further been contended that one can file an application under Section 28-A of the Act within three months from the date of reference court award, that where the court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under Section 4 (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector, may notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be redetermined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court. In the light of Section 28 -A (1) of the Act, it has been contended that application for enhancement could be filed within 90 days, whereas the applicants were filing the appeal after a delay of 12 years and 350 days, which was highly belated and not condonable, that if delay was condoned, the respondents would suffer irreparable loss as in case of enhancement they had to pay huge amount of interest from the date of award.;