R.F.A. No. 2429 of 2010 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 6084-CI of 2010 and R.F.A. No. 2429 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 6.9.2010 Bhajan Kaur and others .. Appellants v. Union of India andothers .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the appellants. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This is an application for condonation of delay of 6452 days in filing the present appeal before this Court against the award dated 7.11.1991, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot. Vide notification dated 28.7.1974, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), the Government of Punjab acquired the land situated in the revenue estate of Faridkot for construction of cantonment. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 15,000/- per acre for Chahi/Chahi Nehri land; ` 12,000/- per acre for Nehri land; ` 6,800/- per acre for Barani land and ` 3,400/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value @ ` 60,000/- per acre for the land upto the depth of 40 karams from two roads, i.e., Faridkot-Sadiq road and cantonment road and ` 30,000/- per acre in respect of other land. Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants submitted that delay of 6452 days in filing the present appeal before this Court deserves to be condoned. He further submitted that the applicants-appellants gave power of attorney to the counsel, who represented them before the court below, for filing appeal in this court, but he did not file any appeal. The submission is that they should not be made to suffer on account of lapse of the counsel. He further submitted that delay should not come in the way for granting substantial justice and the technicality should give way to justice. Heard learned counsel for the applicants-appellants and perused the record. R.F.A. No. 2429 of 2010 [ 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. It may be noticed that a number of land owners aggrieved against the award of the learned Court below with regard to the same acquisition filed appeals before this Court which were finally disposed of vide judgment dated 30.10.2008 passed in R.F.A. No. 2506 of 1992-- Union of India and others v. Ram Singh. The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 6452 days was filed by the applicants-appellants before this Court stating therein that the counsel, who represented them before the court below, did not file appeal before this court. In fact, the applicants-appellants took steps to file the appeal after the judgment of Ram Singh's case (supra), whereby the compensation was enhanced to ` 60,000/- for the land falling in Block-A and ` 30,000/- per acre for the remaining land. No affidavit of the counsel, who represented the applicants before the court below, was filed in support of the averments mentioned in the application. This is hardly an explanation to justify the huge period of delay. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I do not find that the cause shown by the applicants-appellants for condonation of delay of 6452 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 6.9.2010 mk