R.F.A. No. 357 of 2007 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 953-CI of 2007 R.F.A. No. 357 of 2007 Date of decision: September 22, 2008 Puran and others .. Appellants v. The Land Acquisition Collector and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. R.A.Yadav, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Rajiv Kawatra, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Ashok Jindal, Advocate for respondent No.3. Rajesh Bindal J. This is an application for condonation of delay of 1264 days in filing the present appeal before this Court against the award dated 30.11.2002, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 1490 acres 3 kanals and 17 marlas, situated within the revenue estate of Villages Manesar, Naharpur, Kasan, Khoh and Kasan was acquired vide notification dated 15.11.1994 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for setting up of Industrial Model Township, Manesar, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. The same was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act on 10.11.1995. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') gave award of Rs. 4,13,600/- per acre for the acquired land. Aggrieved against the same, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, determined the fair value of the land at Rs. 6,89,333/- per acre for `A' class land and upheld the award of the Collector in respect of other land. Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants relied upon Dilbagh Singh v. Collector Land Acquisition Industries Department, 2003 (1) RLR 102 to submit that delay of 1264 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 R.F.A. No. 357 of 2007 [ 2] 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 19.5.2006, passed in R.F.A. No. 2699 of 2003-- Pran Sukh v. Haryana State and others. The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 1264 days was filed by the applicants-appellants before this Court on 17.1.2007 stating therein that one Chandgi Ram of their village had filed reference petition and advised the applicants-appellants to enquire about the same. After enquiry, the applicants-appellants came to know that their reference petition had also been decided by the learned Court below. It is also averred in the application that thereafter the applicants-appellants enquired from Ram Narain who told that he had taken the certified copy of the award but forget to deliver the same to the applicants-appellants. However, no affidavit of Chandgi Ram and Ram Narain has been filed to support the averments made in the application. No reason is also forthcoming as to why the appellants-appellants were not following their case. Another ground raised in the application for condonation of delay is that other appeals arising out of the same acquisition are pending before this Court, whereas the fact remains that this Court had decided first batch of cases arising out of the acquisition vide judgment dated 19.5.2006 in Pran Sukh's case (supra) and it was only that certain isolated cases remained pending. The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay was filed after the decision in that case. 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 R.F.A. No. 357 of 2007 [ 3] 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 applicant-appellant for condonation of delay of 1264 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 22.9.2008 mk