R.F.A. No. 460 of 2010 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. Nos. 782-83-CI of 2010 and R.F.A. No. 460 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.5.2010 Sukhbir Singh and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. S.R. Hooda, Advocate for the appellants. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This is an application for condonation of delay of 557 days in filing the present appeal before this Court against the award dated 6.11.2007, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat. Vide notification dated 16.8.2002, issued under Section 4 of the Act, the Government of Haryana acquired 37.13 acres of land situated in village Sitawali Hadbast No. 115, Tehsil and District Sonepat for construction of Carrier Lined Channel. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 2,00,000/- . On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value @ Rs. 3,20,000/- per acre for the land abutting the village abadi and for the remaining land, it upheld the award of the Collector. Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants submitted that delay of 557 days in filing the present appeal before this Court deserves to be condoned. In fact, the appeal could not be filed in time as the counsel in the court below did not inform the applicants about the decision of the case. They came to know only when they approached the counsel on 12.7.2008. The submission is that delay should not come in the way for granting substantial justice and the technicality should give way to justice. The delay in filing the appeal is not intentional. Heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant 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 R.F.A. No. 460 of 2010 [ 2] 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 with regard to the same acquisition filed appeals before this Court which were finally disposed of vide judgment dated 27.4.2009 passed in R.F.A. No. 2815 of 2008 –Prem and others v. The State of Haryana and others. The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 557 days was filed by the applicants-appellants before this Court stating therein that counsel for the applicants did not inform them about the passing of award by the Reference Court. However, no affidavit of the counsel engaged by the applicants has been filed in support of the averments made in the application. Admittedly, the applicants came to know about the decision of the reference on 12.7.2008, still they took steps to file the appeal only after the judgment dated 27.4.2009 in Prem's case (supra), whereby the compensation for the acquired land was enhanced to Rs. 3,97,000/- per acre by this court. There is no explanation to justify the huge period of delay. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I do not find that the cause shown by the applicants-appellants for condonation of delay of 557 days in filing the appeal is sufficient. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal and the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC are also dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 17.5.2010 mk