RFA No. 2057 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 5731-CI of 2009 and R.F.A. No. 2057 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.8.2010 Rajesh Kumar and others .. Appellants v. Haryana State and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Saurabh Bajaj, Advocate for the appellants. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This is an application for condonation of delay of 7848 days in filing the present appeal before this Court against the award dated 7.10.1985, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Karnal. Vide notification dated 30.8.1977, issued under Section 4 of the Act, the Government of Haryana acquired the land situated in village Taraf Afgana Hadbast No. 17, Tehsil, Panipat, District Karnal for residential, commercial and industrial area in the urban estate. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 35,000/- per acre. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value @ ` 25/- per square yard. Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants submitted that delay of 7848 days in filing the present appeal before this Court deserves to be condoned. Explaining the cause of delay, he further submitted that the applicants-appellants moved application for modification of the award on 15.10.1993 which was partly allowed by the learned court below on 2.3.2007. 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 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. RFA No. 2057 of 2009 [2] 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 7848 days was filed by the applicants-appellants before this Court stating therein that the applicants were minor during the proceedings before the court below and their mother, being illiterate, were not aware about the proper procedure. Still the fact remains that instead of filing appeal, the applicants- appellants moved application before the court below for modification of the award on 15.10.1993. It is not disputed that enhancement of compensation could not possibly be claimed in application for modification before the court below after a long gap of eight years. This is hardly an 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 7848 days in filing the appeal is sufficient. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. No further order is required to be passed on the other accompanying applications. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 10.8.2010 mk