R. F. A No. 4594 of 2009 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh CM No. 12306/CI of 2009 and R. F. A No. 4594 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 7.2.2011 Jagdish ..... Appellant vs The State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal, J This is an application for condonation of delay of 1723 days in filing the present appeal before this Court against the award dated 6.8.2004, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat. Briefly, the facts are that land situated within the revenue estate of Village Fazilpur, Tehsil and District Sonepat was acquired vide notification dated 17.5.1990, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for development and utilisation thereof as residential and commercial area in Sector-12, Sonepat. The same was followed by notification issued under Section 6 of the Act dated 16.5.1991. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 1,80,000/- per acre and ` 1,30,000/- per acre for the specific khasra numbers comprised in rectangle nos. 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference, the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat, keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, determined the value @ ` 100/- per square yard for the land comprised in rectangle nos. 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 and ` 120/- per square yard for the remaining land. It is this award which is impugned before this court. R. F. A No. 4594 of 2009 -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 1723 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. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that intentionally earlier the applicant-appellant has not filed the appeal as he was satisfied with the award of the learned court below. However, as now the amount of compensation has been enhanced by this court, he wanted to take the benefit of that judgment. The submission is for dismissal of applications as well as the main appeal as no plausible reason has been given for condonation of delay. Heard learned counsel for the parties 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 1.12.2008, passed RFA No.431 of 2000– State of Haryana and another vs Jaipal and another. R. F. A No. 4594 of 2009 -3- The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 1723 days was filed by the applicant-appellant before this Court on 24.7.2009 stating therein that the appellant came to know from co-villager in the middle of May 2009 that the the learned court below had decided the reference under Section 18 of the Act in August 2004. On coming to know about the decision by the learned court below, he obtained a copy of the award. As the appellant was semi literate and extremely poor, he could not engage a counsel for filing appeal against the award of the learned court below. Thereafter, after arranging some amount, he filed the present appeal and the application for condonation of delay. However, no affidavit of co- villager has been filed in support of the averments made in the application. No reason is also forthcoming as to why the applicant-appellant was not pursuing his case. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I do not find that the cause shown by the applicant-appellant for condonation of delay of 1723 days in filing the appeal is sufficient. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. 7.2.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge