R.F.A. No. 488 of 2010 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 806-CI of 2010 and R.F.A. No. 488 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.5.2010 Mange Ram .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate for the appellant. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This is an application for condonation of delay of 590 days in filing the present appeal before this Court against the award dated 6.11.2007, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat. Vide notification dated 16.8.2002, issued under Section 4 of the Act, the Government of Haryana acquired 37.13 acres of land situated in village Sitawali Hadbast No. 115, Tehsil and District Sonepat for construction of Carrier Lined Channel. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 2,00,000/- . On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value @ Rs. 3,20,000/- per acre for the land abutting the village abadi and for the remaining land, it upheld the award of the Collector. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submitted that delay of 590 days in filing the present appeal before this Court deserves to be condoned. He further submitted that when the applicant-appellant came to know that other similarly situated persons had filed appeals in this Court, he cantacted the counsel and filed the present appeal. The submission is that delay should not come in the way for granting substantial justice and the technicality should give way to justice. Heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant 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. R.F.A. No. 488 of 2010 [ 2] 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 the same acquisition filed appeals before this Court which were finally disposed of vide judgment dated 27.4.2009 passed in R.F.A. No. 2815 of 2008 –Prem and others v. The State of Haryana and others. The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 590 days was filed by the applicant-appellant before this Court stating therein that the applicant being villager had not knowledge about the future course of action and remained under the impression that the award of the learned court below was final. In fact, the applicant-appellant took steps to file the appeal after the judgment of Prem's case (supra), whereby the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 3,97,000/- per acre by this court. There is any explanation to justify the huge 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 590 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 17.5.2010 mk