R. F. A No. 481 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Misc. No. 1179/CI of 2011 and R. F. A No. 481 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 25.5.2011 Joginder ..... Appellant vs The State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Rajesh Bindal J. The landowner has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Along with the appeal, application for condonation of delay of 7831 days in filing thereof has also been filed. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 12/28.9.1983 and 29.3.1985 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State of Haryana sought to acquire land situated within the revenue estate of village Bohli, Tehsil Panipat and District Karnal (now District Panipat), for installation of Refinery. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 24.7.1985. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') vide award dated 26.3.1987 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 20,000/- per acre for chahi/nehri; ` 10,000/- per acre for barani; and ` 5,000/- per acre for banjar. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowner filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below upheld the award of the Collector vide judgment dated 8.2.1989. It is this judgment which is impugned in the present appeal. R. F. A No. 481 of 2011 -2- Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant relied upon Dilbagh Singh v. Collector Land Acquisition Industries Department, 2003 (1) RLR 102 to submit that delay of 7831 days in filing the appeal before this Court deserves to be condoned. The appeal was not filed in time as appellant was unde the impression that the appeal has already been filed by his father in the learned court below. The bunch of petitions was dismissed by the learned court below and all the landowners therein had filed appeals in the High Court. The appellant was also under the impression that his advocate has also filed appeal in the High Court against the impugned judgment. Now when he contacted his Advocate, it was found that his appeal was not filed. Thereafter, the present appeal has been filed with the prayer of condonation of delay. The submission is that delay should not come in the way for granting substantial justice. The technicality should give way to justice. The Court should be liberal in condoning the delay. 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. R. F. A No. 481 of 2011 -3- 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 1.3.2006, passed in RFA No. 1932 of 1988 – Charanjit Singh and others vs State of Haryana and others. The appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 7831 days were filed by the applicant-appellant before this Court in 15.10.2010 stating therein the appeal was not filed in time as he was unde the impression that the appeal has already been filed by his father in the learned court below. The bunch of petitions was dismissed by the learned court below and all the landowners therein had filed appeals in the High Court. The appellant was also under the impression that his advocate has also filed appeal in this Court against the impugned award and when he contacted his Advocate, it was found that his appeal was not filed. Even the father of the applicant/appellant expired on 9.7.2005. He has not given any reason as to why he had not pursued his case. Had he filed the appeal, he must have enquired from the said advocate about the status thereof in the last 21 years. No reason is forthcoming for this huge delay. This court had disposed of bunch of appeals pertaining to the acquisition vide judgment dated 1.3.2006 in Charanjit Singh ' s case (supra). Still the appeal was filed by the applicant-appellant on 15.10.2010 i.e. more than four years after the decision of Charanjit Singh ' s case (supra). There is no explanation for this period also. The story projected seems to be an after thought. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I do not find that the cause shown by the applicant-appellant for condonation of delay of 7831 days in filing the appeal, is sufficient. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal and accompanying application for permission to file appeal is also dismissed. 25.5.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge