R. F. A No. 3245 of 2010 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh CM No. 8035-36/CI of 2010 and RFA No. 3245 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 4.5.2011 Om Parkash .... Appellant vs State of Haryana and others .... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate for Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for the applicants-appellants. Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. RAJESH BINDAL, J This order shall dispose of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 3245 to 3249 of 2010, as the same arise out of common acquisition. The landowners have filed the appeals seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly the facts are that vide notification dated 16.8.2002 published on 17.9.2002 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') the State of Haryana sought to acquire land in the revenue estate of village Sitawali, Hadbast No. 115, Tehsil and District Sonepat for construction of Carrier Lined Channel. The same was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 14.11.2002. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') awarded compensation of acquired land @ ` 2,00,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 6.11.2007, determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 3,20,000/- per acre. Aggrieved against the award of R. F. A No. 3245 of 2010 -2- learned Court below, the landowners have filed appeals before this Court. Along with the appeals, applications for condonation of delay of 633 days in filing and 84 days in refiling the appeals have also been filed. Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants relied upon Dilbagh Singh v. Collector Land Acquisition Industries Department, 2003 (1) RLR 102 to submit that delay of 633 days in filing the appeals before this Court deserves to be condoned. The appeals were not filed in time as applicants were under the impression that when the amount has been decided by the learned court below, then no further apepal lies against that order. The 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 applicants-appellants 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 which were finally disposed of vide judgment dated 27.4.2009, passed in RFA No. 2815 of 2008 Prem and others vs The State of Haryana and others . R. F. A No. 3245 of 2010 -3- The appeals along with applications for condonation of delay of 633 days were filed by the applicants-appellants before this Court on 29.10.2009 stating therein the appeals were not filed in time as applicants, who were illiterate and poor, were under the impression that when the amount has been decided by the learned court below, then no further appeal lies against that order. This court had disposed of bunch of appeals pertaining to the acquisition vide judgment dated 27.4.2009 in Prem ' s case (supra). Still the appeals were filed by the applicants- appellants in October 2009 about six months thereafter. There is no explanation for this period. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I do not find that the cause shown by the applicants-appellants for condonation of delay of 633 days in filing the appeals is sufficient. Accordingly, the applications for condonation of delay in filing and refiling of appeal, are dismissed. Consequently, the appeals and all other accompanying applications are also dismissed. 4.5.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge