R.F.A. No. 3565 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 7162-CI of 2008 and R.F.A. No. 3565 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 6.9.2010 Shree Chand and others .. Appellants v. The State of Haryana and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Ajit Malik, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This is an application for condonation of delay of 2460 days in filing the present appeal before this Court against the award dated 18.1.2001, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad. Vide notification dated 3.7.1995, issued under Section 4 of the Act, the Government of Haryana acquired the land measuring 89.66 acres, situated in village Ajronda, Hadbast No. 118, Tehsil and District Faridabad for commercial institutional, recreational and residential purposes. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 5,85,000/- per acre. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value @ ` 400/- per square yard. Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants submitted that delay of 2460 days in filing the present appeal before this Court deserves to be condoned. He further submitted that the applicants-appellants remained under the impression that their mother (since deceased) had filed appeal for enhancement in this court. He further submitted that delay should not come in the way for granting substantial justice and the technicality should give way to justice. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that there is no explanation for such a huge period of delay. The prayer was for dismissal of the application for condonation of delay as well as appeal. Heard learned counsel for the applicants-appellants and perused the record. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mewa Ram (Deceased) by his LRs and R.F.A. No. 3565 of 2008 [2] 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 2460 days was filed by the applicants-appellants before this Court by making the following averments: “3. That the present appellant was under the impression that her mother Smt. Amar Kaur (since deceased) has also filed an appeal for enhancement of compensation against the award dated 18.1.2001 and under this impression the appellants remained home throughout. 4. That it is necessary to submit here that Smt. Amar Kaur (since deceased) has expired on 18.4.2004 leaving behind the present appellants No. 4 to 9. As already stated above, the appellants were not aware of the fact whether any appeal has ever been filed by their mother or not. 5. That the present appellant came to know from the other land owners of the same village whose land was also acquired under same notification that the appeal filed by the various land owners against the impugned award dated 18.1.2001 has been listed in the cause list for its final adjudication. After came to know this the appellants immediately contacted with other land owners of the same village to know about the status of the appeals filed by their mother along with other land owners. 6. That one of the appellants namely Lakhi Ram s/o late Smt. Amar Kaur approached the Hon'ble High Court and enquired about the status of the appeal which was allegedly filed by her late mother for enhancement of compensation. After making enquiry the present appellants came to know that there was no such appeal had ever been filed by the mother of the appellants. 7. That the present appellant decided to file cross-objections R.F.A. No. 3565 of 2008 [3] against the appeal filed by the State of Haryana against the impugned order dated 18.1.2001. Consequently counsel for the appellant prepared the cross objections and directed his clerk to make enquiry about the status and numbers of the Regular First Appeal filed by the State of Haryana against the impugned award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Ld. Addl. District Judge, Faridabad. 8. That after making enquiry, the clerk of the counsel for the appellants intimated that there is no such Regular First Appeal has been filed by the State of Haryana against the impugned award dated 18.1.2001.” A perusal of the above averments made in the application for condonation of delay shows that the delay has not been satisfactorily and convincingly explained by the applicants. It is not a case, where the applicants- appellants were minors and their mother had been pursuing the reference petition before the learned court below and the appeal was filed immediately when they attained majority. In fact, the appeal was filed four years after the death of the mother on 18.4.204. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I do not find that the cause shown by the applicants-appellants for condonation of delay of 2460 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 6.9.2010 mk