R. F. A No. 2835 of 2009 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh CM No. 8078/CI/2009 and RFA No. 2835 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 10.2.2011 Smt. Leela Wati ..... Appellant vs State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Babbar Khan, Advocate for Mr. V. S. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant. Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal, J This is an application for condonation of delay of 2229 days in filing the present appeal before this Court against the award dated 17.12.2002, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon. Briefly, the facts are that land situated within the revenue estate of Villages Manesar, Naharpur Kasan, Khoh and Kasan was acquired vide notification dated 15.11.1994 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for setting up of Industrial Model Township, Manesar, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. The same was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 10.11.1995. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed compensation @ ` 4,13,600/- per acre for the acquired land. Aggrieved against the same, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, determined the fair value of the land @ ` 6,89,333/- per acre for `A' class land and upheld the award of the Collector in respect of other land. It is this award which is challenged in the present appeal. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant relied upon Dilbagh Singh vs Collector Land Acquisition Industries Department, 2003 (1) RLR 102 to submit that delay of 2229 days in filing the present appeal R. F. A No. 2835 of 2009 -2- 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 others vs 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 vs 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 vs 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 disposed of vide judgment dated 19.5.2006, passed in R.F.A. No. 2699 of 2003-- Pran Sukh vs Haryana State and others. The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 2229 days was filed by the applicant-appellant before this Court on 23.4.2009 stating therein that in the middle of March 2009, the appellant came to know from co-villager that the learned court below had already decided the reference. On coming to know about the decision of the reference, she contacted her Advocate. Thereafter, the appellant obtained the certified copy and filed the present appeal along with application for condonation of delay. However, no affidavit of co-villager or the Advocate has been filed in support of the averments made in the application. No reason is also forthcoming as to why the applicant-appellant was not following her case diligently. R. F. A No. 2835 of 2009 -3- Another ground raised by the counsel for the applicant- appellant for condonation of delay is that other appeals arising out of the same acquisition are pending before this Court, whereas the fact remains that this Court had decided first batch of cases arising out of the acquisition vide judgment dated 19.5.2006 in Pran Sukh's case (supra) and it was only that certain isolated cases remained pending. The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay was filed after the decision in that case. 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, prima facie, I do not find that the cause shown by the applicant-appellant for condonation of delay of 2229 days in filing the appeal is sufficient. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. 10.2.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge