IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 5122 -CI of 2007 and R.F.A. No. 2397 of 2007 Date of decision: September 23, 2008 Charan Singh and others .. Appellants v. Collector Land Acquisition, Industries Department Punjab and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Narinder Singh Pawar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents. Rajesh Bindal J. This is an application for condonation of delay of 3753 days in filing the present appeal before this Court against the award dated 6.9.1996, passed by learned District Judge,Kapurthala. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 1233 kanals 7 marlas was acquired vide notification dated 24.9.1985 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for setting up of Integral Coach Factory near Hussainpur Railway Station. The same was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act on 11.11.1985. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') gave award of Rs. 21,108/- per acre for chahi land; Rs. 8,205/- per acre for barani and gair mumkin kind of land. Aggrieved against the same, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned District Judge, Kapurthala, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, upheld the award of the Collector. Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants relied upon Dilbagh Singh v. Collector Land Acquisition Industries Department, 2003 (1) RLR 102 to submit that delay of 3753 days in filing the present appeal before this Court deserves to be condoned. Referring to the aforesaid judgment, 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. 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. The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 3753 days was filed by the applicants-appellants before this Court on 16.5.2007 stating therein that one of them, namely, Charan Singh was out of country and when he returned to India, it came to his notice from the villagers that other land owners had filed the appeals. However, the application is lacking the details about the dates when one of the applicants-appellants visited abroad and when he returned back. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I do not find that the cause shown by the applicants-appellants for condonation of delay of 3753 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 23.9.2008 mk