R.F.A. No. 4103 of 2007 [Page numbers] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 8003-CI of 2007 and R.F.A. No. 4103 of 2007 Date of decision: 30.10.2008 Mahender Singh and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Adish Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Navneet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State. Rajesh Bindal J. This is an application for condonation of delay of 1807 days in filing the present appeal before this Court against the award dated 8.5.2002, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 184.6 acres, situated in Village Mewla Maharajpur Hadbast No. 4, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad was acquired vide notification dated 2.8.1989 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'). The same was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') gave award of Rs. 3,50,000/- per acre for chahi land and Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre for narmot, banjar qadim, gair mumkin pahar kind of land. Aggrieved against the same, the land owners 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 land at Rs. 45/- per square yard. Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants submitted that delay of 1807 days in filing the present appeal before this Court deserves to be condoned. 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. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mewa Ram (Deceased) by his LRs and R.F.A. No. 4103 of 2007 [Page numbers] 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 1807 days was filed by the applicants-appellants before this Court on 26.9.2007 stating therein that there was another reference of the family which stood disposed of on 17.1.1997 regarding the same notification and the decision of that reference was not communicated by the counsel in the trial court. The entire burden is put on the counsel, but no particulars of that counsel have been furnished. No reason is also forthcoming as to why the applicants-appellants were not following their case. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I do not find that the cause shown by the applicant-appellant for condonation of delay of 1807 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 30.10.2008 mk