R.F.A. No. 3548 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 3548 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: September 30, 2008 Dilbagh .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the appellant. Rajesh Bindal J. This is an application for condonation of delay of 6580 days in filing the present appeal before this Court against the award dated 1.2.1989, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Karnal. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 6656 kanals 19 marlas situated in Village Bohli, Tehsil Panipat, District Karnal was acquired vide notifications dated 12/19.9.1983 and 29.3.1985 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for the installation of Refinery in Village Bohli, Tehsil Panipat. The same were followed by notifications 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/nehri 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, upheld the award of the Collector. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submitted 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. 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. R.F.A. No. 3548 of 2007 [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. 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 1.3.2006, passed in R.F.A. No. 1932 of 1988-- Charanjit Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others. The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 6580 days was filed by the applicant-appellant before this Court on 2.8.2008. As per the averments in the application, earlier the father of the applicant-appellant was pursuing the matter and later on the co-villagers were taking care of the matter. The applicant-appellant was under the impression that the co-villagers had also filed appeal on his behalf. The applicant-appellant came to know after the decision in Charanjit Singh's case that no appeal had been filed on his behalf. The present appeal has been filed nearly 17 months after the judgment of this Court in Charanjit Singh's case (supra). 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 period of delay. The application is also lacking the details of the co-villagers. A full Bench of this Court in Smt. Tara Wanti v. State of Haryana, (1994-2) PLR 761 opined that mere pendency of another appeal arising out of same acquisition cannot be held to be sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I do not find that the cause shown by the applicant-appellant for condonation of delay of 6580 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 30.9.2008 mk