R. F. A No. 6107 of 2011 (1) IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Civil Misc. No. 13753/CI of 2011 and R. F. A No. 6107 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 21.12.2011 Bal Singh and others ... Appellants vs The State of Haryana and another .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Adish Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants. Rajesh Bindal J. The present appeal has been filed by the landowners seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Along with the appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 3,577 days has also been filed. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Haryana vide notification dated 7.9.1992 issued under Section 4 of the Act, sought to acquire land situated in revenue estate of Village Mewla Maharajpur, Tehsil and District Faridabad, for development and utilisation thereof as residential, commercial and institutional Sectors 44 and 47 at Faridabad. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 1,96,800/- 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 determined the market value of the acquired land ` 90/- per square yard. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal. 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 3,577 days in filing the present appeal before this Court deserves to be condoned. The submission is that delay R. F. A No. 6107 of 2011 (2) 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 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 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 1.9.2009, passed in RFA No. 4438 of 2008– State of Haryana and another vs Sailak Ram and others. The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 3,577 days was filed by the applicant-appellant before this Court on 8.7.2011 stating therein that the appellants were under the bonafide belief that any enhancement that may be awarded in case of other landowners, the same amount would also be awarded to other landowners. The reason given by the appellant for not filing appeal in this court cannot be accepted. R. F. A No. 6107 of 2011 (3) Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I do not find that the cause shown by the applicant-appellant for condonation of delay of 3,577 days in filing the appeal is sufficient. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal as well as other accompanying application are also dismissed. 21.12.2011 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge