R. F. A No. 4520 of 2011 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh CM Nos. 10181-82/CI of 2011 and R. F. A No. 4520 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 16.12.2011 Hoshiar Singh ..... Appellant vs The State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate for Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant. Rajesh Bindal, J The landowner has filed the present appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Along with the appeal, he has filed application for condonation of delay of 2,353 days in filing thereof. Briefly, the facts are that land situated within the revenue estate of Sonepat was sought to be acquired vide notification dated 9.11.1992 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for development and utilisation thereof as residential and commercial area along with Sector road at Sonepat. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 3,00,000/- per acre for the area falling on both sides of Sonepat-Bahalgarh road upto four acres, ` 2,00,000/- per acre for chahi/nehri, and ` 1,00,000/- per acre for gair mumkin/ banjar kind of land. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference, the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat, vide award dated 3.5.2004, keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, determined the fair value of the acquired land @ ` 100/- per square yard for chahi/nehri and ` 60/- for gair mumkin/banjar kinds of land. It is this award which is impugned before this court. R. F. A No. 4520 of 2011 -2- Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant relied upon Dilbagh Singh v. Collector Land Acquisition Industries Department, 2003 (1) RLR 102 to submit that delay of 2,353 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. The technicality should give way to justice. The Court should be liberal in condoning the delay. Heard learned counsel for the 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. 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 30.5.2007, passed in R.F.A. No. 2453 of 2000 – Smt. Chanderpati and others vs State of Haryana and another, The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 2,353 days was filed by the applicant-appellant before this Court through his attorney Anand Singh, on 10.1.2011 stating therein that Anand Singh had engaged Shri Ram Pat Dahiya, Advocate, for filing appeal against the award of the learned court below and all documents were handed over to him. It was stated that Shri Ram Pat Dahiya told the attorney about the filing of the appeal. The attorney and the appellant came to know from co-villager that this court had decided some of the appeals against the award of the learned court below. On coming to know about the decision of the R. F. A No. 4520 of 2011 -3- appeals against the award of the learned court below, the attorney of the appellant tried to contact the Advocate. On enquiry, he came to know that the said Advocate had left the practice 5/6 years ago. Thereafter, he obtained fresh certified copy of the impugned award and filed the present appeal along with application for condonation of delay. However, no affidavit of co-villager has been filed in support of the averments made in the application. No reason is also forthcoming as to why the applicant- appellant was not pursuing his case. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I do not find that the cause shown by the applicant-appellant for condonation of delay of 2,353 days' in filing the appeal is sufficient. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal as well as other application are also dismissed. 16.12.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge