R.F.A. No. 608 of 2007 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 608 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: September 30, 2008 Satpal .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Narender Sura, , Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. Rajesh Bindal J. This is an application for condonation of delay of 511 days in filing the present appeal before this Court against the award dated 21.4.2005, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 52 acres situated in the revenue estate of Village Unchagaon, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad was acquired vide notification dated 8.5.1995 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for the development and utilisation of land as transport communication and commercial, residential and instiutional for Sector 61, Faridabad. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') gave award of Rs. 2,07,87,500/- as price of the land. Aggrieved against the same, the land owner filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, determined the fair value of the acquired land @ Rs. 400/- per square yard. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant relied upon Rattan Lal v. State of Haryana, 1998(1) PLR 283 to submit that delay of 511 days in filing the present appeal before this Court deserves to be condoned. Referring to the aforesaid judgment, the submission is that delay should not come in the way for granting substantial justice and the technicality should give way to justice. The Court should be liberal in condoning the delay and pendency of another appeal arising out of the same acquisition is a valid ground for condonation of delay, especially when in some other cases, the delay was condoned. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. R.F.A. No. 608 of 2007 [ 2] 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 which were finally disposed of vide judgment dated 3.5.2006, passed in R.F.A. No. 2501 of 2001 –Ved Pal and others v. State of Haryana and others . The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 511 days was filed by the applicant-appellant before this Court on 31.1.2007. As per the averments in the application, the applicant-appellant came to know in the month of December, 2006 that similar appeals were pending and few had been decided by this Court. The present appeal has been filed nearly eight months after the judgment of this Court in Ved Pal's case (supra). As to what efforts were made by the applicant-appellant after the judgment of this Court to get the same amount of compensation is not forth coming in the application nor there is any explanation to justify the period of delay. A full Bench of this Court in Smt. Tara Wanti v. State of Haryana, (1994-2) PLR 761 opined that mere pendency of another appeal arising out of same acquisition cannot be held to be sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I do not find that the cause shown by the applicant-appellant for condonation of delay of 511 days in filing the appeal is sufficient. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 30.9.2008 mk