R. F. A No. 4116 of 2010 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh CM No. 10286-87/CI of 2010 and R. F. A No. 4116 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 28.3.2011 Kanwar Singh @ Kanwarjeet Singh and others ..... Appellants vs State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the applicants-appellants. Rajesh Bindal, J The landowners are in appeal against the award dated 22.12.2005, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panipat, seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that land situated within the revenue estate of Village Patti Taraf Insar, Hadbast No. 12, Tehsil and District Panipat was sought to be acquired vide notification dated 10.5.1989 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for development and utilisation thereof as residential, commercial, industrial and institutional area for Sectors 6, 7 and 8 Panipat. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 2,00,000/- per acre. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference, the learned Additional District Judge, Panipat, keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, determined the fair value of the acquired land @ ` 81/- per square yard vide award dated 22.12.2005. It is this award which is impugned before this court. Along with the appeal, the landowners have also filed applications for condonation of delay of 1358 days in filing and 28 days in refiling the present appeal before this Court. R. F. A No. 4116 of 2010 -2- Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants relied upon Dilbagh Singh v. Collector Land Acquisition Industries Department, 2003 (1) RLR 102 to submit that delay of 1358 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. The technicality should give way to justice. The Court should be liberal in condoning the delay. Heard learned counsel for the appellants 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 27.5.2009, passed in R.F.A. No. 2213 of 1995 – Kasturi Lal and others vs The State of Haryana and others, The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 1358 days was filed by the applicants-appellants before this Court on 9.12.2009 stating therein that after the decision of reference by the learned court below, the applicants entrusted the job of filing appeal in this court to applicant Gurnam Singh. But he inadvertently did not do so. It came to the knowledge of the applicants on their visit to Chandigarh. Thereafter, they immediately applied for a certified copy of the orders and filed appeal and the application for condonation of delay. No reason is R. F. A No. 4116 of 2010 -3- forthcoming as to why the applicants-appellants were not pursuing their case. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I do not find that the cause shown by the applicants-appellants for condonation of delay of 1358 days in filing the appeal is sufficient. Accordingly, the applications for condonation of delay in filing and refiling the appeal are dismissed. Consequently, the appeal as well as other applications are also dismissed. 28.3.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge