R.F.A. No. 2637 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 5611-CI of 2007 and R.F.A. No. 2637 of 2007 Date of decision: 10.12.2008 Ravinder Pal .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Navneet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State. Rajesh Bindal J. This is an application for condonation of delay of 6469 days in filing the present appeal before this Court against the award dated 14.6.1989, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Karnal. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 6656 kanals and 19 marlas, situated in Village Bohali, Tehsil Panipat, District Karnal was acquired vide notification dated 29.3.1985 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for installation of Refinery in Village Bohli, Tehsil Panipat. The same was followed by notification dated 24.7.1985, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') gave award of Rs. 20,000/- per acre for chahi land; Rs. 10,000/- per acre for Barani land and Rs. 5,000/- per acre for Banjar kind of land. Aggrieved against the same, the land owner filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, determined the fair value of the land at Rs. 26,524/- per acre for Nehri/Chahi land; Rs. 13,333/- per acre for Barani land and Rs. 6,650/- per acre for Banjar land. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submitted that delay of 6469 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 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 condoned. R.F.A. No. 2637 of 2007 [2] 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. The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 6469 days was filed by the applicant-appellant before this Court on 13.7.2007 stating therein that as per the advice of the counsel, out of a bunch of land references, only one appeal was filed in this Court under the impression that since all the land references were dismissed by a common order, therefore, one appeal against that award would serve the purpose. The entire burden is put on the counsel, but no particulars of that counsel have been furnished. No reason is also forthcoming as to why the applicant-appellant was not following his case. As per averments in the application, R.F.A. No. 1062 of 1990 filed by other land owners against the award of the learned court below was decided on 3.11.2006. No explanation is forthcoming as to why the applicant-appellant remained silent for for about 8 months, when the present appeal was filed. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I do not find that the cause shown by the applicant-appellant for condonation of delay of 6469 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 10.12.2008 mk