R.F.A. No. 2488 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 6193-CI of 2010 and R.F.A. No. 2488 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.4.2011 Azad Singh and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the applicants-appellants. Rajesh Bindal J. This is an application for condonation of delay of 1944 days in filing the present appeal before this Court against the award dated 15.3.2004 passed by learned court below. Briefly, the facts are that land situated in village Raipur, Tehsil and District Sonepat was sought to be acquired by State of Haryana vide notification dated 9.11.1992 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'). The same was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act on 6.11.1993. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 1,80,000/- per acre for Chahi/Nehri land; ` 1,00,000/- per acre for Barani land and ` 90,000/- per acre for Banjar kind of land. Aggrieved against the same, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, assessed the market value @ ` 100/- per square yard for Chahi/Nehri land; ` 75/- per square yard for Barani land and ` 70/- per square yard for Banjar land. Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants submitted that delay of 1944 days in filing the present appeal before this Court deserves R.F.A. No. 2488 of 2010 [2] 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. 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. The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 1944 days was filed by the applicants-appellants before this Court stating therein that applicants-Umed, Ram Chander, Omi Devi, Ashok, Sunita and Santosh had given their power of attorney in favour of applicant-Azad Singh, for pursuing the case on their behalf. When the other land owners got enhanced compensation, they came to know that no appeal had been filed by Azad Singh on their behalf. However, no affidavit of applicant-Azad Singh has been filed in support of the averments made in the application. There is hardly any explanation to justify huge period of delay. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I do not find that the cause shown by the applicants-appellants for condonation of delay of 1944 days in filing the appeal is sufficient. R.F.A. No. 2488 of 2010 [3] Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 28.4.2011 mk