R.F.A. No. 2188 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 5594-CI of 2010 and R.F.A. No. 2188 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.8.2010 Smt. Raj Sahni .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the appellant. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This is an application for condonation of delay of 3182 days in filing the present appeal before this Court against the award dated 7.5.2001, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 10.7.1995, issued under Section 4 of the Act, the Government of Haryana acquired 154.58 acres of land in village Jharsetli and 66.28 acres in village Kail, Hadbast No. 44 and 51 respectively, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad for development and utilisation of land as industrial, commercial and institutional purposes for Sector 59, Faridabad. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 4,60,000/- per acre in respect of land acquired in village Jharsetli and ` 3,30,000/- per acre in respect of land acquired in village Kail. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value @ ` 425/- per square yard. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submitted that delay of 3182 days in filing the present appeal before this Court deserves to be condoned. He further submitted that when the applicant-appellant came to know that other similarly situated persons had filed appeals in this Court, which are pending, she cantacted the counsel 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. R.F.A. No. 2188 of 2010 [2] Heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant 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 with regard to the same acquisition filed appeals before this Court which were finally disposed of vide judgment dated 13.12.2006, passed in R.F.A. No. 5100 of 2001-- Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana and others. The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 3182 days was filed by the applicant-appellant before this Court stating therein that the applicant was under a bonafide belief that the appeal filed by the co-sharer would enure to her benefit also. In fact, the applicant-appellant took steps to file the appeal after the judgment of Satbir Singh's case (supra), whereby the compensation was enhanced to ` 500/- per square yard by this court. There is no explanation to justify the huge period of delay. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I do not find that the cause shown by the applicant-appellant for condonation of delay of 3182 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 24.8.2010 mk