R. F. A No. 2241 of 2009 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh CM No. 6301/CI of 2009 and R. F. A No. 2241 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 1.2.2011 Harish Chander and another ..... Appellants vs State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. N. K. Malhotra, Advocate, for the applicants-appellants. Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal, J This is an application for condonation of delay of 1617 days in filing the present appeal before this Court against the award dated 11.12.2003, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak. Briefly, the facts are that land situated within the revenue estate of Village Chandi, Hadbast No. 93, Tehsil and District Rohtak was acquired vide notification dated 9.10.1997 published on 10.10.1997 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for construction of Indergarh Link Drain. The notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 8.12.1997. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 1,20,000/- per acre for nehri, ` 1,10,000/- per acre for chahi, ` 80,000/- per acre for barani, ` 45,000/- per acre for banjar kadim, and ` 40,000/- per acre for gair mumkin rasta/gair mumkin plots. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below, upheld the award of the collector and dismissed the reference. It is this award which is impugned before this court in the present appeal. Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants relied upon judgment in Dilbagh Singh v. Collector Land Acquisition Industries Department, 2003 (1) RLR 102 to submit that delay of 1617 days in filing the present appeal before this Court deserves to be condoned. The R. F. A No. 2241 of 2009 -2- submission is that delay should not come in the way for granting substantial justice. The technicality should give way to justice. The Court should be liberal in condoning the delay. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mewa Ram (Deceased) by his LRs and others v. State of Haryana, (1986) 4 SCC 151 did not accept the prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeal because in another case enhancement of compensation for the adjacent land had been made. In State of Nagaland v. Lipokao and others, (2005) 3 SCC 752, Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined that proof of sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of discretion by the Court in condoning the delay In D. Gopinathan Pillai v. State of Kerala and another, (2007) 2 SCC 322, Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined that when mandatory provision is not complied and the delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the Court cannot condone the delay on sympathetic ground only. It may be noticed that a number of land owners aggrieved against the award of the learned Court below filed appeals before this Court. The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 1617 days was filed by the applicants-appellants before this Court on 13.8.2008 stating therein that the appellants were advised that they may file appeal after the decision of other appeals filed by the landowners. It was also submitted that the original claimant Dharam Chand expired and on enquiry it came to their notice that the appeal was not filed in the present reference. On coming to know about the aforesaid facts, they file the present appeal and the application for condonation of delay. However, a perusal of the impugned award shows that the present appellants were the claimants before the court below when the reference was decided by it. Accordingly, the reasons given by the appellants for condonation of delay are not trustworthy. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I do not find that the cause shown by the applicants-appellants for condonation of delay of 1617 days in filing the appeal is sufficient. R. F. A No. 2241 of 2009 -3- Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal as well as other applications are also dismissed. 1.2.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge