R.F.A. No. 1687 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 4707-CI of 2009 and R.F.A. No. 1687 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.8.2010 Gurdev Singh and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Pritam Saini, 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 5719 days in filing the present appeal before this Court against the award dated 31.10.1992, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ambala. Briefly, the facts are that the land in question, situated in village Ferozepur Kalan, District Ambala was acquired vide notification dated 30.3.1982 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for development and utilisation of land as commercial area. It was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act on 26.10.1982. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded ` 20/- per square yard as compensation. Aggrieved against the same, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, awarded ` 70/- per square yard for the acquired land. Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants submitted that delay of 5719 days in filing the present appeal before this Court deserves to be condoned. He further submitted that the applicants-appellants, being illiterate, gave the documents to a friend to engage an advocate for filing appeal in this Court, who told that the appeal had been admitted. Later on, they came to know that no such appeal was filed. The submission is that delay should not come in the way for granting substantial justice and the technicality should give way to justice. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that no explanation is forth coming to justify the huge period of delay and the application deserves dismissal. R.F.A. No. 1687 of 2009 [2] 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. The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 5719 days was filed by the applicants before this court alleging therein that they gave the documents to a friend to engage the counsel for filing appeal before this court. However, on verification, they found that no such appeal was filed. No particulars of the so-called friend have been furnished by the applicants. The ground of illiteracy is hardly an explanation to justify the delay. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I do not find that the cause shown by the applicant-appellant for condonation of delay of 5719 days in filing the appeal is sufficient. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. No orders are required to be passed in the accompanying applications. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 13.8.2010 mk