RFA No. 262 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 557-CI of 2009 and R.F.A. No. 262 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 5.8.2010 Virender and others .. Appellants v. The State of Haryana and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the State. Mr. Ashok Jindal, Advocate for respondent No. 3. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This is an application for condonation of delay of 2026 days in filing the present appeal before this Court against the award dated 12.10.2002, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon. Vide notification dated 15.11.1994, issued under Section 4 of the Act, the Government of Haryana acquired 1490 acres 2 kanals and 16 marlas, situated within the revenue estate of villages Manesar, Maharpur Kasan, Khoh and Kasan for setting up of Industrial Model Township, Manesar, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. The same was followed by notification dated 10.11.1995, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land @ 4,13,600/- per acre. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value @ 6,89,333/- per acre for `A' class of land and @ 4,13,600/- per acre for `B' Class of land. Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants submitted that delay of 2026 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 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. RFA No. 262 of 2009 [2] On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted as no explanation is forthcoming regarding huge delay in filing the appeal, the same should not be condoned. 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. 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 19.5.2006 passed in R.F.A. No. 2699 of 2003 – Pran Sukh v. State of Haryana and others. The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 2026 days was filed by the applicants-appellants before this Court stating therein that factum of dismissal of the reference filed by them was never communicated by their counsel in the court below. The appellants, being illiterate, could not file the appeal in time. They came to know about the disposal of appeals filed by other land owners in July, 2008 and when they contacted their counsel in the court below, it was revealed that he had already expired. This is hardly an 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 2026 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 5.8.2010 mk