R.F.A. No. 2640 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 2640 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: September 30, 2008 Gurcharan Singh .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.S.S.Goripuria, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. Rajesh Bindal J. This is an application for condonation of delay of 13 years and 44 days in filing the present appeal before this Court against the award dated 15.3.1989, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Karnal. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 6656 kanals 19 marlas situated in Village Bohli, Tehsil Panipat, District Karnal was acquired vide notifications dated 12/19.9.1983 and 29.3.1985 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for the installation of Refinery in Village Bohli, Tehsil Panipat. The same were followed by notifications issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') gave award of Rs. 20,000/- per acre for chahi/nehri land; Rs. 10,000/- per acre for barani land and Rs. 5,000/- per acre for banjar kind of land. Aggrieved against the same, the land owner filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, upheld the award of the Collector. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant relied upon Dilbagh Singh v. Collector Land Acquisition, Industries Department Punjab and others, 2002(1) PLJ 504 to submit that delay of 13 years and 44 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. R.F.A. No. 2640 of 2007 [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. It may be noticed that a number of land owners aggrieved against the award of the learned Court below with regard to same acquisition filed appeals before this Court which were finally disposed of vide judgment dated 1.3.2006, passed in R.F.A. No. 1932 of 1988-- Charanjit Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others. The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 13 years and 44 days was filed by the applicant-appellant before this Court on 13.7.2007. As per the averments in the application, the entire burden was put on the counsel who inadvertently left over the file of the applicant-appellant. The application is lacking the details of the counsel. 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. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I do not find that the cause shown by the applicant-appellant for condonation of delay of 13 years and 44 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