RFA No. 5142 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 5142 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 2.5.2011 Hari Kishan and others .. Appellants v. The State of Haryana and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Kul Bhushan Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the award dated 1.9.1999, passed by the learned court below, seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Along with the appeal, an application seeking condonation of delay of 3808 days in filing thereof has also been filed. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 16.11.1988, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), land measuring 420.10 acres situated in the revenue estate of villages Garhi Brahman Hadbast No. 203, Jamalpur Khurd Hadbast No. 204 and Kalupur Hadbast No. 205, Tehsil and District Sonepat was sought to be acquired for residential and commercial area in Sector 23, Sonepat. The same was followed by notification dated 13.12.1989, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 1,00,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 49/- per square yard. RFA No. 5142 of 2010 [2] Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants submitted that delay of 3808 days in filing the present appeal 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 in view of the fact that in the connected appeals against the impugned award in RFA No. 662 of 1996 –Prithvi Singh and another v. State of Haryana, decided on 30.5.2008, this court had enhanced the compensation for the acquired land. 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. The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 3808 days was filed by the applicants-appellants before this Court stating therein that there was delay in filing the appeal on account of the fact that the appellants engaged Mr. Subhash Chand Kapoor, Advocate for filing appeal against the impugned award. After the decision of connected appeals by the other land owners, the appellants enquired about the fate of their appeal and ultimately they came to know that the appeal had not been filed by Mr. Subhash Chand Kapoor, who has since expired. Otherwise also, there is no material on record to show that the applicants-appellants had engaged the counsel referred to above. The RFA No. 5142 of 2010 [3] applicants-appellants have approached the court even two years later after the decision of Prithvi Singh's case (supra) by this court. There is hardly any justification to condone the huge delay. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I do not find that the cause shown by the applicants-appellants for condonation of delay of 3808 days in filing the appeal is sufficient. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. The accompanying applications are also dismissed. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 2.5.2011 mk