RFA No. 2799 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 5717-CI of 2008 and R.F.A. No. 2799 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.3.2010 Mahesh and others .. Appellants v. The Land Acquisition Collector and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Babbar Bhan, Advocate for the appellants. Rajesh Bindal J. This is an application for condonation of delay of 1700 days in filing the present appeal before this Court against the award dated 5.3.2003, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 1490 acres, 2 kanals and 6 marlas, situated within the revenue estate of villages Manesar, Naharpur Kasan, Khoh and Kasan was acquired vide notification dated 15.11.1994 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for setting up of Industrial Model Township, Manesar, Tehsil and District Grugaon. The same was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act on 10.11.995. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') gave award of Rs. 4,13,600/- per acre. Aggrieved against the same, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, assessed the market value of `A' class acquired land @ Rs. 6,89,333/- per acre, whereas upheld the award of the Collector in respect of `B' class land. Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants submitted that delay of 1700 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. RFA No. 2799 of 2008 [2] Heard learned counsel for the applicants-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 with regard to the same acquisition filed appeals before this Court which were finally disposed of vide judgment dated 19.5.2006 passed in R.F.A. No. 2699 of 2003 – Pran Sukh v. State of Haryana and others. The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 1700 days was filed by the applicants-appellants before this Court stating therein that counsel for the applicants was under the bonafide impression that appeal in the present case had also been filed along with other appeals. When the appeals were decided, it came to the notice of the appellants that appeal on their behalf had not been filed by the counsel engaged by them. However, no affidavit of the counsel engaged by the applicants has been filed in support of the averments made in the application. 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 applicants-appellants for condonation of delay of 1700 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 16.3.2010 mk