RFA No. 975 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 1994-CI of 2010 and R.F.A. No. 975 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.7.2010 Raghvendra Singhal .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Robin Dutt, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. This is an application for condonation of delay of 6507 days in filing the present appeal before this Court against the award dated 11.1.1992, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ambala. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 262 kanals and 6 marlas, situated in village Talipura, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Ambala (now Yamuna Nagar) was acquired by the State of Haryana vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for construction of Shahabad Feeder. The same was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') gave award of ` 29,000/- per acre for Chahi land and ` 5,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land. Aggrieved against the same, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 80,000/- per acre. Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants submitted that delay of 6507 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. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that as the delay is not properly explained, the same should not be condoned and the application as well as the appeal be dismissed. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. RFA No. 975 of 2010 [2] 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 31.3.2008 passed in R.F.A. No. 3512 of 1992. The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 6507 days was filed by the applicant-appellant before this Court stating therein that he became the owner of the property by way of the will executed by his mother- Smt. Ravi Bala who was not aware of the judgment and decree, passed by the learned court below and expired on 26.10.2007 by executing a will in favour of the applicant. When the applicant contacted the revenue officials regarding entering the mutation, then he came to know about the acquisition of land. This is hardly an explanation to justify the huge period of delay. The action to file appeal was to be taken by the owners of the land at the appropriate time. The applicant here only steps into their shoes after he got the land by way of Will. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I do not find that the cause shown by the applicant-appellant for condonation of delay of 6507 days in filing the appeal is sufficient. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal as well as the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC are also dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 20.7.2010 mk