R.F.A. No. 997 of 2009 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 2239-CI of 2009 and R.F.A. No. 997 in 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 4.8.2010 Parma Nand and others .. Appellants v. Land Acquisition Collector-cum-SDO (Civil), Gurgaon and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. R. A. Yadav, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the State. Mr. Ashok Jindal, Advocate for respondents No. 3 to 5. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This is an application for condonation of delay of 833 days in filing the present appeal before this Court against the award dated 30.11.2002, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon. Vide notification dated 15.11.1994, issued under Section 4 of the Act, the Government of Haryana acquired 1490 acres, 2 kanals and 6 marlas, situated within the revenue estate of village Manesar, Nahapur Kasan, Khoh and Kasan for setting up of Industrial Model Township, Manesar, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. The same was followed by notification dated 10.11.1995, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of class acquired land @ ` 4,13,600/- per acre. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of `A' class land @ ` 6,89,333/- per acre and for `B' class of land @ ` 4,13,600/- per acre. Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants submitted that delay of 833 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 and the technicality should give way to justice. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is huge delay of 833 days in filing the appeal. As no explanation is R.F.A. No. 997 of 2009 [ 2] forthcoming, the delay should not be 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 with regard to the same acquisition filed appeals before this Court which were finally disposed of vide judgment dated 19.5.2006 passed in R.F.A. No. 2699 of 2003 – Pran Sukh v. State of Haryana and others. The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 833 days was filed by the applicants-appellants before this Court stating therein that counsel before the court below applied for certified copy of the award on 27.7.2008 and told that the same will be sent after preparation. On receipt of certified copy of the award, the applicants-appellants contacted the counsel and sought information regarding filing of appeal, who told that limitation for filing the appeal had already expired. However, no affidavit of the said counsel has been filed. This is hardly an explanation to justify the huge period of delay. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I do not find that the cause shown by the applicants-appellants for condonation of delay of 833 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 4.8.2010 mk