R. F. A No. 2983 of 2010 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh CM No. 7291/CI of 2010 and RFA No. 2983 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 1.4.2011 Ram Kumar and others .... Appellants vs State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate, for the applicants-appellants. Rajesh Bindal, J The present appeal has been filed by the landowners seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 8.5.1995, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State of Haryana acquired land in Village Malerna, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad, for development and utilisation thereof as commercial, residential and institutional for Sector-61, Faridabad. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the Collector”) assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 1,50,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 23.12.2000, determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 400/- per square yard. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal. Along with the appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 3174 days has also been filed. R. F. A No. 2983 of 2010 -2- 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 3174 days in filing the present appeal before this Court deserves to be condoned. The appeal was not filed in time as the counsel at that time advised them not to file appeal, as the applicants/appellants will get same amount of compensation, which may be assessed by the courts finally. The application is not accompanied by affidavit of the counsel, who advised the applicants. 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 9.1.2008, passed in RFA No. 1507 of 2001 – Vinay Kumar Aggarwal vs State of Haryana and another. R. F. A No. 2983 of 2010 -3- The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 3174 days was filed by the applicants-appellants before this Court on 30.11.2009 stating therein the appeal was not filed in time as their counsel at that time advised them not to file appeal, as they will get same amount of compensation, which may be assessed by the courts finally. However, no affidavit of the Advocate, who has advised them, has been filed in support of the averments made in the application. Otherwise this court had disposed of bunch of appeals pertaining to the acquisition vide judgment dated 9.1.2008 in Vinay Kumar Aggarwal' s case (supra). Still the present appeal was filed by the applicants- appellants in November 2009 about two years thereafter. There is no explanation even 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 3174 days in filing the appeal is sufficient. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. 1.4.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge