R.F.A. No. 1945 of 2008 [Page numbers] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 4022-CI of 2008 and R.F.A. No. 1945 of 2008 Date of decision: October 20, 2008 Nagesh Kumar .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. C.L. Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Rajesh Bindal J. This is an application for condonation of delay of 11-1/2 years and 22 days in filing the present appeal before this Court against the award dated 19.12.1995, passed by learned District Judge, Faridabad. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 1468 kanals 18 marlas situated in the revenue estate of Mewla Maharajpur, Hadbast No.4, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad was acquired vide notification dated 2.8.1989 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for development and utilization of land as residential and commercial area in Sector 45 of Faridabad-Ballabgarh Controlled Area. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') gave award of Rs. 3,50,000/- per acre for Chahi land and Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre for rest of the acquired land. Aggrieved against the same, the land owner filed objections which were referred to the learned District Judge, Faridabad, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, determined the fair value of the acquired land @ Rs. 45/- per square yard. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submitted that delay of 11-1/2 years and 22 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. 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 R.F.A. No. 1945 of 2008 [Page numbers] 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 21.5.2007, passed in R.F.A. No. 99 of 1997 –Smt. Aharfi and others v. State of Haryana. The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 11-1/2 years and 22 days was filed by the applicants-appellants before this Court on 9.10.2007 stating therein that other land owners filed appeals against the award of the learned Court below, but the counsel for the applicant-appellant advised him that since the award of the learned court below has already been challenged by others, the decision of this Court shall be applicable to all the similarly situated claimants and, therefore, he did not file appeal. However, no detail as such is forthcoming. The present appeal has been filed nearly 5 months after the judgment of this Court in Smt. Aharfi'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. A full Bench of this Court in Smt. Tara Wanti v. State of Haryana, (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 applicants-appellants for condonation of delay of 11-1/2 years and 22 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 20.10.2008 mk R.F.A. No. 1945 of 2008 [Page numbers]