R. F. A No. 2369 of 2010 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh CM No. 5985/CI of 2010 and R. F. A No. 2369 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 12.1.2011 Rajbir and others ..... Appellants vs State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate, for the appellants. Rajesh Bindal, J This is an application for condonation of delay of 2986 days in filing the present appeal before this Court against the award dated 10.8.2001, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat. Briefly, the facts are that land situated within the revenue estate of Village Sultanpur, Hadbast No. 80, Tehsil and District Sonepat was acquired vide notification dated 9.11.1992 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for development and utilisation thereof as residential and commercial area alongwith Sector road at Sonepat. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 3,00,000/- per acre for the area falling both sides of Sonepat-Bahalgarh road upto four acres, ` 2,00,000/- per acre for chahi/nehri, and ` 1,00,000/- per acre for gair mumkin/ banjar and remaining land. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference, the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat, keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, determined the fair value of the acquired land @ ` 100/- per square yard for chahi/nehri and ` 60/- for gair mumkin/banjar kinds of land. It is this award which is impugned before this court. 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 2986 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. R. F. A No. 2369 of 2010 -2- 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 30.5.2007, passed in R.F.A. No. 2453 of 2000 – Smt. Chanderpati and others vs State of Haryana and another, The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 2986 days was filed by the applicants-appellants before this Court on 17.1.2010 stating therein that the appellants came to know from co-villager that this court had decided some of the appeals against the award of the learned court below. On coming to know about the decision of the appeals against the award of the learned court below, they tried to contact their Advocate. On enquiry, they were informed that the said Advocate had left the practice 5/6 years ago. Thereafter, the appellants obtained the certified copy and filed the present appeal and the application for condonation of delay. However, no affidavit of co-villager has been filed in support of the averments made in the application. No reason is also 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 2986 days in filing the appeal is sufficient. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal as well as other applications are also dismissed. 12.1.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge