R.F.A. No. 986 of 2008 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 1935-CI of 2008 and R.F.A. No. 986 of 2008 Date of decision: 9.1.2009 Som Nath .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate for the appellant. Rajesh Bindal J. This is an application for condonation of delay of 5 years and 275 in filing the present appeal before this Court against the award dated 23.12.2000, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 52 acres, situated in village Unchagaon was acquired vide notification dated 8.5.1995 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for development and utilisation as transport communication and commercial, residential and institutional for Sector 61, Faridabad. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') gave award of Rs. 4,00,000/- per acre for the acquired land. Aggrieved against the same, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 400/- per square yard. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant relied upon Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst. Katiji and others, AIR 1987 SC 1353, Dilbagh Singh v. Collector Land Acquisition Industries Department, 2003 (1) RLR 102 and Union of India and others v. Rameshchandra Joshi, 2003(2) RCR (Civil) to submit that delay of 5 years and 275 days in filing the present appeal before this Court deserves to be condoned. Referring to the aforesaid judgments, the submission is that delay should not come in the way for granting substantial justice and the technicality should give way to justice. The Court should be liberal in condoning the delay and pendency of another appeal arising out of the same acquisition is a valid ground for condonation of delay, especially when in some other cases, the delay was R.F.A. No. 986 of 2008 [ 2] condoned. Heard learned counsel for the parties 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 3.5.2006 passed in R.F.A. No. 2501 of 2001. The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 5 years and 275 days was filed by the applicant-appellant before this Court on 14.1.2008 stating therein that he was under the impression that since the appeals against the same award had already been filed by similarly situated persons, there was no requirement to file separate appeal. However, the application is lacking in details as to who tendered such a legal advice to the applicant-appellant. The present appeal has been filed nearly one year and eight months after the judgment of this Court in R.F.A. No. 2501 of 2001. As to what efforts were made by the applicant-appellant after the judgment of this Court to get the same amount of compensation is not forth coming in the application nor there is any 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 5 years and 275 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 9.1.2009 mk