R.F.A. No. 1830 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 4731 of 2010 and R.F.A. No. 1830 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.8.2010 Anil Kumar and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. I. S. Pabla, Advocate for the appellants. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This is an application for condonation of delay of 16 years and 102 days in filing the present appeal before this Court against the award dated 30.3.1993, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. Vide notification dated 15.9.1987, issued under Section 4 of the Act, the Government of Haryana acquired the land, situated in village Darra-Kalan, Hadbast No. 379, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra for land scaping, roads, foot-paths and various other development acitivites initiated by Kurukshetra Development Board, Kurukshetra. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 1,31,000/- per acre for chahi kind of land and ` 32,150/- per acre for Gair Mumkin kind of land. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value @ ` 2,70,816/- per acre. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submitted that delay of 15 years and 467 days in filing the present appeal before this Court deserves to be condoned. He further submitted that the applicants-appellants were not able to file appeal in this court within the prescribed period as petition for deciding the title under Section 30 of the Act was pending before the court below. After the decision of the petition under Section 30 of the Act, the applicants-appellants initiated process to contact each other and filed the present appeal. The submission is 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. 1830 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 20.3.2008 in R.F.A. No. 151 of 1992 –Sucha Singh v. State of Haryana and others. The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 15 years and 467 days was filed by the applicants-appellants before this Court by making the following averments: “2. That there is delay of 15 years and 467 days in filing this appeal which was due to reason that the Addl. District Judge decide its reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on 30.3.1993, but the petitioners not able to file their appeal in Hon'ble High Court within prescribe time as the petition for deciding the title under Section 30 of the Act was pending before the ADJ Kurukshetra, copy of judgment of ADJ u/s 30 of the Act. The petition was instituted on 8.1.1991/7.6.1993 and decided on 7.11.1996. 3. That after the title was determined u/s 30 of the Act by the ADJ, Kurukshetra on 7.11.1996, till that time all the petitioners who are brothers are being living separately and due to some family differences and problems were not in contact. Hence unintentionally due to lack of knowledge of limitation law they not able to file appeal in time. 4. That only after getting the information regarding appeal craved out of same notification under Section 4 was decided by the Hon'ble High Court on 20.3.2008 and the other land owners filed the S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court the petitioners filed this appeal R.F.A. No. 1830 of 2010 [3] without further delay. Copy of High Court Annexure A-1.” (sic.) A perusal of the above shows that in fact, the applicants-appellants filed appeal only after the judgment of Sucha Singh's (supra), whereby the compensation was enhanced to ` 100/- per square yard. Family dispute is sought to be cited as a ground for seeking condonation of huge delay. This is hardly an explanation. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I do not find that the cause shown by the applicant-appellant for condonation of delay of 16 years and 102 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 16.8.2010 mk