R. F. A No. 636 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Misc. No. 1476/CI of 2011 and R. F. A No. 636 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.5.2011 Onkar Mal Aggarwal ..... Appellant vs Haryana State and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate, for the appellant. Rajesh Bindal J. The landowner has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 21.3.1991 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State of Haryana sought to acquire land situated within the revenue estate of Hisar, Hadbast No. 146, Tehsil and District Hisar, for development and utilisation thereof for residential purposes for Sector- 16 and parts of Sectors 11, 13, 15 and 17 Hissar. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 3,00,000/- per acre for category “A”, ` 2,50,000/- per acre for category “B” (abutting Railway lines and cremation ground) and ` 2,00,000/- per acre for category “C”. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowner filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 30.7.1999 determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 200/- per square yard. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal. Along with the appeal, application for condonation of delay of 11 years 66 days in filing thereof has also been filed. R. F. A No. 636 of 2011 -2- Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant relied upon Dilbagh Singh v. Collector Land Acquisition Industries Department, 2003 (1) RLR 102 to submit that delay of 11 years 66 days in filing the appeal before this Court deserves to be condoned. The appeal was not filed in time as applicant had entrusted his case to Mr. V. K. Bhasin, Advocate, for filing appeal in this court. On enquiry, he came to know that his appeal was not filed by Mr. V. K. Bhasin. Thereafter, the present appeal has been filed by the applicant. It was also submitted that the applicant is suffering from cancer. 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 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 filed appeals before this Court which were finally disposed of vide judgment dated 11.1.2006, passed in LPA No. 953 of 2000 – Partap Singh and another vs State of Haryana and another. R. F. A No. 636 of 2011 -3- The appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 11 years 66 days were filed by the applicant-appellant before this Court in October 2010 stating therein the appeal was not filed in time as applicant had entrusted his case to Mr. V. K. Bhasin, Advocate, for filing appeal in this court. On enquiry, he came to know that his appeal was not filed by Mr. V. K. Bhasin. He has not given any reason as to why he had not pursued his case. Had he filed the appeal, he must have enquired from the said advocate about the status thereof in the last 11 years. No reason is forthcoming for this huge delay. This court had disposed of bunch of appeals pertaining to the acquisition vide judgment dated 11.1.2006 in Partap Singh ' s case (supra). Still the appeal was filed by the applicant-appellant in October 2010 i.e. more than four years after the decision of Partap Singh ' s case (supra). There is no explanation for this period also. The cases entrusted by Mr. Bhasin, Advocate, to Mr. Jaswant Jain, Advocate, in this court had been filed and as is evident from the letter placed on record, this case was never entrusted. The story projected seems to be an after thought. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I do not find that the cause shown by the applicant-appellant for condonation of delay of 11 years 66 days in filing the appeal is sufficient. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal and accompanying application are also dismissed. 11.5.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge