R.F.A. No. 711 of 2008 [ Page numbers ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 1385-CI of 2008 and R.F.A. No. 711 of 2008 Date of decision: 21.10.2008 Surmukh Singh and others .. Appellant v. State of Punjab and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Ms. G. K. Hundal, Advocate for the applicants- appellants. Mr. B.B.S. Teji, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents. Rajesh Bindal J. This is an application for condonation of delay of 5261 days in filing the present appeal before this Court against the award dated 26.2.1993, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala. Briefly, the facts are that the land in question situated at Village Chalheri, Hadbast No. 81, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala was acquired vide notification dated 2.11.1987 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for construction of S.Y. L. Power House, Rajpura at Village Chalheri. The same was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act on 20/24.11.1987. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') gave award of Rs. 50,000/- per acre for chahi rausli land and Rs. 40,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land. Aggrieved against the same, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, awarded Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre for chahi land and Rs. 75,000/- per acre for gair mumkin land. Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants submitted that delay of 5261 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 R.F.A. No. 711 of 2008 [ Page numbers ] 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 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 30.8.2006, passed in R.F.A. No. 2151 of 1993. The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 5261 days was filed by the applicants-appellants before this Court on 20.8.2007 stating therein that the applicants-appellants were small land owners and their entire land was acquired but inadvertently they could not file the appeal. They were advised that they will be entitled to the same amount of compensation awarded by this Court. It was only that when the appeals were decided by this Court, they came to know that they had to file the appeal. The present appeal has been filed nearly one year after the judgment of this Court in R.F.A. No. 2151 of 1993. The application is lacking about the particulars of the person who gave the advice not to file the appeal. As to what efforts were made by the applicants-appellants 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 R.F.A. No. 711 of 2008 [ Page numbers ] huge period of delay. 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 5261 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 21.10.2008 mk