R. F. A No. 7892 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CM Nos. 18246-47/CI of 2011 and RFA No. 7892 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 29.2.2012 Ram Sarup and others ..... Appellants vs State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Madan Pal, Advocate, for the applicants-appellants. Rajesh Bindal, J By filing the present appeal, the landowners are seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 12.4.1990, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), State of Haryana sought to acquire land situated within the revenue estate of Kasba Karnal and village Bhudha Khera, Tehsil and District Karnal, for the purpose of development and utilisation thereof as residential and commercial area of Sector-9, Karnal. The same was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 9.4.1991. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the Collector”) assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 3,00,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference, the learned court below vide award dated 9.11.1998 determined fair market value of the acquired land @ ` 81/- per square yard. It is this award which is impugned by the landowners before this court. Along with the appeal, application seeking condonation of delay of 12 years and 296 days has also been filed. R. F. A No. 7892 of 2011 -2- Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants submitted that delay in filing the appeal before this Court be condoned. The contention 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. 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 vs 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 vs 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 vs 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 appeal along with the application for condonation of delay of 12 years 296 days was filed by the applicants-appellants before this Court on 18.11.2011 stating therein that they have handed over the documents to Mr. Parveen Sharma, Advocate. He has also told them that he will inform them about the filing of the appeal. In the month of August 2011, the appellants came to know that Mr. Parveen Sharma, Advocate, through whom documents had been handed over to file the appeal, died on 1.3.1999. Thereafter, they enquired about their appeal but came to know that no such appeal has been filed by the counsel. The delay had occurred in filing the appeal due to this reason. The delay is bonafide, not intentional or willful. The reason given by the applicants-appellants is not sufficient to condone huge delay of 12 years 296 days. The applicants should have been vigilant and enquired about the status of their case. Other appeals arising out of R. F. A No. 7892 of 2011 -3- acquisition were decided by this court vide judgment dated 3.2.2000, passed in RFA No. 882 of 1999 – Neelam Bala and others vs The State of Haryana and another. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I do not find that the cause shown by the applicants-appellants for condonation of huge delay in filing the appeal is sufficient. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal and the other accompanying application is also dismissed. 29.2.2012 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge