R.F.A. No. 1483 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 3985-CI of 2007 and R.F.A. No. 1483 of 2007 Date of decision: 20.10.2008 Sadhu Ram alias Sadhu .. Appellant v. State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Ashu Bhatia, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.S.Geripuria, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. This is an application for condonation of delay of 10060 days in filing the present appeal before this Court against the award dated 9.8.1979 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 48.56 acres situated in Village Ratgal was acquired vide notifications dated 29.6.1973 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for establishing civil station in the urban estate of Kurukshetra. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') gave award of Rs. 19,200/- per acre for the land falling in block `A' and Rs. 17,600/- per acre for the land falling in block `B'. Aggrieved against the same, the land owner filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, determined the market value @ Rs. 22,000/- per acre for the land falling in block `A' and Rs. 17,600/- per acre for the land falling in block `B'. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submitted that delay of 10060 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. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. R.F.A. No. 1483 of 2007 [2] 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 10060 days was filed by the applicant-appellant before this Court on 24.5.2007 by making the following averments: “That the delay in approaching this Hon'ble Court is not intentional or deliberate or malafide at all because the petitioner has approached the learned LAC by filing an application for re-determination under Section 28-A, after the judgment in RFA No. 7 of 1982 in case of Amar Lal was pronounced on 14.3.1990. The application for re- determination was rejected by the learned LAC on 16.12.92 on the ground of limitation. The application for the re-determination was submitted on the ground of determining value of land in view of judgment dated 14.3.90 passed in RFA No. 7 of 1982. Afterwards in the year 2006, some landowners in the petitioner's village received notices issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as proforma respondents in SLP © Nos. 534-536 of 2005 in case of Arjan (D) through LRs versus State of Haryana. xx xx xx That after a couple of months petitioner came to know that the notice has been issued by the Division Bench headed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice on application under Section 5 for condonation of delay of 6351 days in C.M. No. 887 of 2006 in Review Application No. 23 of 2006 in LPA No. 747 of 1985 in Khushi Ram's case and the question involved in this case is regarding providing compensation at par with at least Amar Lal's case as the land in question acquired in Khushi Ram's case is similar to public purpose in Amar Lal's and Arjun Singh's case and also belongs to same revenue estate or villages. R.F.A. No. 1483 of 2007 [3] Thereafter, the petitioner who is illiterate and poor villager, sought legal opinion and applied for certified copies of the relevant orders/ judgments and decided to file regular first appeal before this Court.” All what is sought to be claimed in the application for condonation of delay is that after decision of other appeals by this Court, application under Section 28A of the Act was filed, which was rejected on 16.12.1992 by the learned Court below being delayed. The applicant-appellant remained silent thereafter and filed the present appeal in this Court on 24.5.2007 against the original award of the Court below dated 9.8.1979. No steps were taken to challenge the order passed against rejection of application filed under Section 28A of the Act dated 16.12.1992. No explanation much less a reasonable one is forthcoming in the application. A full Bench of this Court in Smt. Tara Wanti v. State of Haryana, (1994-2) PLR 761 opined that mere pendency of another appeal arising out of same acquisition cannot be held to be sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I do not find that the cause shown by the applicants-appellants for condonation of delay of 10060 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 20.10.2008 mk