R. F. A No. 2630 of 2010 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh CM No. 6810/CI of 2010 and R. F. A No. 2630 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 13.1.2011 Anup Singh ..... Appellant vs The State of Punjab and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Dinesh Ghai, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate, for respondent no. 2. Rajesh Bindal, J This is an application for condonation of delay of 5,734 days in filing the present appeal before this Court against the award dated 15.3.1994, passed by learned District Judge, Ropar. Briefly, the facts are that land situated within the revenue estate of village Malikpur, Tehsil and District Ropar, was acquired by the State of Punjab vide notification dated 20.5.1988 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for construction of Sutlej Yamuna Link Power House No. 1, Ropar. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') vide award no. 8 dated 12.6.1990 determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 95,500/- per acre for chahi/nehri, ` 90,000/- per acre for barani, ` 84,000/- per acre for banjar, and ` 50,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference, the learned District Judge, Ropar, keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, determined the fair value of the acquired land @ ` 3,40,000/- per acre vide award dated 15.3.1994. It is this award which is impugned before this court. 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 5734 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. R. F. A No. 2630 of 2010 -2- On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no. 2, 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 26.4.2006, passed in R.F.A. No. 3673 of 1993 – The State of Punjab and another vs Harnam Singh (deceased) through LRs, The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 5734 days was filed by the applicant-appellant before this Court on 23.2.2010 stating therein that the appellant came to know only on 11.2.2010 when he received summons from Hon'ble the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 16826 of 2009 titled as State of Punjab through PSEB Patiala vs Anup Singh against the judgment passed in RFA No. 1473 of 1994 titled as State of Punjab vs Anup Singh dated 8.9.2008 filed by the State of Punjab against the applicant-appellant. On coming to know about the enhancement, he filed the present appeal and the application for condonation of delay. However, this fact does not show that he was not satisfied with the award of the compensation by the learned court below as initially he choose not to file appeal against the award of the learned court below. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I do not find that the cause shown by the applicants-appellants for condonation of delay of 5734 days in filing the appeal is sufficient. R. F. A No. 2630 of 2010 -3- Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal as well as other applications are also dismissed. 13.1.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge