R.F.A. No. 3674 of 2006 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 8209-CI of 2006 and R.F.A. No. 3674 of 2006 Date of decision: September 12, 2008 Shingara Singh .. Appellant v. State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Navneet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. This is an application for condonation of delay of 6371 days in filing the present appeal before this Court against the award dated 2.11.1988, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Karnal. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 6477 kanals 11 marlas and 179 kanals 8 marlas, situated in Village Bohli, Tehsil Panipat, District Karnal was acquired vide notifications dated 12/19.9.1983 and 29.3.1985 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for installation of Refinery in Village Bohli, Tehsil Panipat. The same were followed by notifications under Section 6 of the Act on 29.3.1985 and 24.7.1985 respectively. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') gave award of Rs. 20,000/- per acre for chahi/nehri land, Rs. 10,000/- per acre for Barani land and Rs. 5,000/- per acre for Banjar land. Aggrieved against the same, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, upheld the award of the Collector. 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 6371 days in filing the present appeal before this Court deserves to be condoned. Referring to the aforesaid judgment, 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 R.F.A. No. 3674 of 2006 [2] 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. 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 14.11.2003, passed in R.F.A. No. 2612 of 1991- Balkar Singh and others v. State of Haryana. The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 6371 days was filed by the applicant-appellant before this Court on 31.7.2006. As per the averments in the application, the entire burden was sought to be put on the counsel that he filed the appeal but his appeal was not decided along with connected appeals. However, no detail as such is forthcoming. The present appeal has been filed nearly three and a half years after the judgment of this Court in R.F.A. No. 2612 of 1991. As to what efforts were made by the applicant- appellant after the judgment of this Court to get the same amount of compensation is not forth coming in the application nor there is any explanation to justify the huge period of delay. 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 6371 days in filing the appeal is sufficient. R.F.A. No. 3674 of 2006 [3] Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 12.9.2008 mk