R.F.A. No. 2628 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 6710-CI of 2010 and R.F.A. No. 2628 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.9.2010 Om Parkash and another .. Appellants v. State of Haryana .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. S. S. Narula, Advocate for the appellants. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This is an application for condonation of delay of 10 years, 8 months and 23 days in filing the present appeal before this Court against the award dated 2.6.1999, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat. Vide notification dated 17.5.1990, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), the Government of Haryana acquired the land, measuring 26.86 acres, in village Fazilpur, Hadbast No. 81, Tehsil and District Sonepat for residential and commercial area in Sector 12, Sonepat. The same was followed by notification dated 16.5.1991, issued under Section 4 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 1,30,000/- per acre comprising in Rect. Nos. 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value @ ` 120/- per square yard. However, for the land for which the Collector had awarded ` 1,30,000/- per acre, the compensation was assessed @ ` 100/- per square yard. Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants submitted that delay of 10 years, 8 months and 23 days in filing the present appeal before this Court deserves to be condoned. To justify the delay, it was submitted that the applicants-appellants engaged Shri S. C. Kapoor, Senior Advocate as a counsel at Chandigarh for filing the appeal. When they contacted their counsel, they were made to understand that their appeal had been detached from other similar cases and would be taken up on its own turn. Ultimately, they came to know that their appeal had in fact not been filed. The submission is that delay should not come in the way for granting substantial justice and the technicality should give way to R.F.A. No. 2628 of 2010 [2] justice. Heard learned counsel for the applicants-appellants 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 24.9.2007, passed in R.F.A. No. 1718 of 2001-- Atam Parkash v. State of Haryana and others. The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 10 years, 8 months and 23 days was filed by the applicants-appellants by making the following averments: “3. That after passing of the award and obtaining the certified copy thereof, the applicant No. 1 came the office of late Shri S. C. Kapoor, Senior Advocate so as to file appeal in this Hon'ble Court for further enhancement. All relevant documents were handed over in the said office and other necessary formalities for engaging the counsel were completed. 4. That the other appeals arising out of same award of ADJ Sonepat therein 2.6.1999 came up before this Hon'ble Court for hearing and on the basis thereof the judgment was rendered on 1.12.2008 whereby the compensation amount was enhanced. Gaining knowledge of the said judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court, the applicants contacted their counsel for getting a copy of the order. They were however made to understand that their appeal had been detached from other similar cases and would be taken up for listing later, with few other similarly situated appeal. This continued for some time and only about a month earlier the applicants gained R.F.A. No. 2628 of 2010 [3] knowledge of the fact that the counsel engaged by them Sh. S. C. Kapoor is no more. 5. That the applicant No. 1 then came to Chandigarh to find out about his case, but inquiries made by him revealed that no appeal with their name was pending in the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. It thus transpired that probably filing of appeal on their behalf of was left out by the counsel on account of the case being one of the many cases filed in a bunch. It is then that the applicants applied for another copy of the judgment rendered in his case and then engaged another counsel to file the accompanying appeal in this Hon'ble Court.” Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants has not been able to point out as to what steps were taken by the applicants-appellants to enquire about the filing or pendency of the case after the same was allegedly entrusted to the counsel at Chandigarh, who unfortunately has expired now. There is no explanation whatsoever even after the other appeals arising out of the acquisition had been decided in Atam Parkash's case (supra). whereby the compensation was enhanced by this court. There is any explanation to justify the huge period of delay. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I do not find that the cause shown by the applicant-appellant for condonation of delay of 10 years, 8 months and 23 days in filing the appeal is sufficient. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal and other accompanying applications are also dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 23.9.2010 mk