R. F. A No. 629 of 2011 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh CM No. 1470/CI of 2011 and RFA No. 629 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 3.6.2011 Jagir Singh ..... Appellant vs State of Haryana ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant. Rajesh Bindal, J The landowner has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Along with the appeal, application for condonation of delay of 17 years 249 days in filing thereof has also been filed. Briefly, the facts are that land situated within the revenue estate of Village Nissang, Hadbast No. 34, Tehsil and District Karnal was sought to be acquired vide notification dated 19.4.1988, published on 21.4.1988, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for construction of Balu Link Drain/ Nissang Protection from RD-0- 7000. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 6.2.1989, which was published on 14.7.1989. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') vide award dated 29.1.1991, determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 60,000/- per acre for chahi/ nehri kinds of land. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the landowner filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 80,000/- per acre vide judgment dated 8.4.1993. It is this award which is impugned before this court by the landowner. R. F. A No. 629 of 2011 -2- 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 17 years 249 days in filing the present appeal before this Court deserves to be condoned. It was submitted that the appellant was under the bonafide belief that any enhancement that may be awarded in case of other landowners, the same amount would also be awarded to the present appellant. Under this bonafide belief, he did not file the appeal earlier. It was further submitted that another appeal arising out of same acquisition is pending before this court, and pendency of another appeal arising out of the same acquisition is a valid ground for condonation of delay. The submission is that delay should not come in the way for granting substantial justice. The technicality should give way to substantial justice. The Court should be liberal in condoning the delay. Heard learned counsel for the 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. The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 17 years 249 days was filed by the applicant-appellant before this Court on 14.12.2010 stating therein that the appellant was under the bonafide belief that any enhancement that may be awarded in case of other landowners, the same amount would also be awarded to the present appellant. Under this bonafide belief, he did not file the appeal earlier. The R. F. A No. 629 of 2011 -3- reason given by the appellant for not filing appeal in this court cannot be accepted. When other appeals have not been decided no occasion arose for the applicant-appellant to file the present appeal. Another ground raised by the counsel for the applicant- appellant for condonation of delay is that other appeal arising out of the same acquisition is pending before this Court is not a sufficient to condone the delay. 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. The story projected by the appellant seems to be an after thought. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I do not find that the cause shown by the applicant-appellant for condonation of huge delay of 17 years 249 days in filing the appeal is sufficient. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. 3.6.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge