R.F.A. No. 1728 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 4631-CI of 2010 and R.F.A. No. 1728 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.7.2010 Suresh Malik .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Ashok Khubbar, Advocate for the appellant. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This is an application for condonation of delay of 11 years and 54 days in filing the present appeal before this Court against the award dated 1.5.1998, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jagadhri. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 165-453 acres situated in village Arrianwala, Tehsil Chhachrauli was acquired by the State of Haryana vide notification dated 15.8.1995 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for construction of Hathni Kund Barrage on Jagadhri- Ponta Road. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') gave award of ` 35,000/- per acre for Barani land and ` 8,750/- per acre for Gair Mumkin kind of land. Aggrieved against the same, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Jagadhri who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 1,05,500/- per acre. However, the reference filed by the appellant was dismissed by the learned court below, on the ground that he had failed to produce any evidence in support of his case. Along with the appeal, an application seeking condonation of delay of 11 years and 54 days has been filed. Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants submitted that delay of 11 years and 54 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. R.F.A. No. 1728 of 2010 [2] 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 11 years and 54 days was filed by the applicant-appellant before this Court stating therein that the reference filed before the learned court below was not consolidated with other references filed by the land owners. The said fact neither came to the notice of the applicant nor his counsel in the court below. He came to know about the dismissal of his reference when he contacted the counsel in this court. However, no affidavit of the counsel in the trial court has been filed in support of the averments made in the application for condonation of delay. 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 11 years and 54 days in filing the appeal is sufficient. The application for leading additional evidence is also dismissed. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 20.7.2010 mk