R.F.A. No. 550 of 2008 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 1123-CI of 2008 and R.F.A. No. 550 of 2008 Date of decision: September 11, 2008 Jagmal .. Appellant v. Land Acquisition Collector and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. Rajesh Bindal J. This is an application for condonation of delay of 1257 days in filing the present appeal before this Court against the award dated 12.2.2004, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 1490 acres 3 kanals and 17 marlas, situated within the revenue estate of Villages Manesar, Naharpur, Kasan, Khoh and Kasan was acquired vide notification dated 15.11.1994 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for setting up of Industrial Model Township, Manesar, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. The same was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act on 10.11.1995. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') gave award of Rs. 4,13,600/- per acre for the acquired land. Aggrieved against the same, the land owner filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, awarded Rs. 6,89,333/- per acre for `A' class acquired land and upheld the award of the Collector in respect of `B' Class acquired land. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has relied upon Dilbagh Singh v. Collector Land Acquisition Industries Department, 2003 (1) RLR 102 to submit that delay of 1257 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 R.F.A. No. 550 of 2008 [ 2] condoned. Heard learned counsel for the applicant-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 19.5.2006, passed in R.F.A. No. 2699 of 2003-- Pran Sukh v. Haryana State and others. The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 1257 days was filed by the applicant-appellant before this Court on 29.11.2007 stating therein that he remained under the impression that as other land owners had filed appeals, he will get similar compensation. It was only that when the appeals were decided by this Court, he came to know that he had to file the appeal. However, the application is lacking in details as to who tendered such a legal advice to the applicant-appellant. The present appeal has been filed nearly one and a half year after the judgment of this Court in Pran Sukh's case (supra). As to what efforts were made by the applicant-appellant 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 huge period of delay. Another ground raised in the application for condonation of delay is that other appeals arising out of the same acquisition are pending before this Court, whereas the fact remains that this Court had decided first batch of cases vide judgment dated 19.5.1986 in Pran Sukh's case (supra) and it was only that certain isolated cases remained pending. The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay was filed after the decision in that case. A full Bench of this Court in Smt. Tara Wanti v. State of Haryana, R.F.A. No. 550 of 2008 [ 3] (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 1283 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 11.9.2008 mk