R. F. A No. 5200 of 2010 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh CM No. 12951/CI/2010 and RFA No. 5200 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 24.2.2011 Om Parkash and another ..... Appellants vs The State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. R. A. Yadav, Advocate, for the applicants-appellants. Rajesh Bindal, J Challenge by the appellants in the present appeal is to the award dated 20.8.2004, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon. Briefly, the facts are that land situated within the revenue estate of Village Manesar, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, was acquired vide notification dated 30.4.1994 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for setting up of Industrial Model Township, Manesar. The same was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 30.3.1995. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') vide his award dated 28.3.1997 assessed the compensation for the acquired land @ ` 3,67,400/- per acre. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned court below. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, learned court below vide award dated 20.8.2004 determined the fair value of the acquired land @ ` 6,51,994.13 per acre for `A' class land i.e. situated around 500 yards from National Highway No. 8 and ` 3,91,196.67 per acre for the remaining land. It is this award which is challenged in the present appeal. Along with the appeal, application seeking condonation of delay of 2008 days has also been filed. R. F. A No. 5200 of 2010 -2- Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants relied upon Dilbagh Singh vs Collector Land Acquisition Industries Department, 2003 (1) RLR 102 to submit that delay of 2008 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 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 applicants-appellants and perused the record. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mewa Ram (Deceased) by his LRs and others vs 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 vs 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 vs 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 disposed of vide judgment dated 5.9.2008, passed in RFA No. 2587 of 2004– M/s Opera House Creations Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Haryana and another. The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 2008 days was filed by the applicants-appellants before this Court on 19.5.2010 stating therein that their case was being pursued by their relative Ram Narain, who did not inform them about the decision of the reference. In the month of April 2010, the appellants came to know from co- villager that the learned court below had already decided the reference and R. F. A No. 5200 of 2010 -3- against the award of the learned court below he had filed appeal in the High Court. Thereafter, they inquired from the said Ram Narain about their case. Then he delivered them a certified copy of judgment applied by him on 1.11.2007, and obtained on 17.11.2007. Now the appellants filed the present appeal along with application for condonation of delay. However, no affidavit of co-villager or said Ram Narain has been filed in support of the averments made in the application. No reason is also forthcoming as to why the applicants-appellants was not following their case diligently. Another ground raised by the counsel for the applicants- appellants 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 5.9.2008 in M/s Opera House Creations Pvt. Ltd. '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 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 2008 days in filing the appeal is sufficient. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. 24.2.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge