RFA No. 2030 of 2009 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 2030 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.2.2011 Suraj Bhan and others .... Appellants vs State of Haryana ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. N. K. Malhotra, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. This is an application for condonation of delay of 1231 days in filing the present appeal before this Court against the award dated 9.12.2004, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Haryana vide notification dated 22.10.1996 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') sought to acquire land situated in revenue estate of Village Bhaproda, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Rohtak, for construction of K. C. B. Drain. The same was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 7.2.1997. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 1,25,000/- per acre for nehri and ` 80,000/- per acre for banjar kind of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below upheld the award of the Collector and rejected the claim of the appellants. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal. Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants submitted 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 and pendency of another appeal arising out of the same acquisition is a valid ground for condonation of delay, especially when in some other cases, the delay was condoned. RFA No. 2030 of 2009 (2) Earlier when the case was adjourned, the time was sought by the learned counsel for the applicants-appellants to site judgments in support of the claim for condonation of delay but no such judgment has been cited. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that consciously earlier the applicants-appellants had not filed appeal as they were satisfied with the award of the learned court below. The submission is for dismissal of applications as well as the main appeal as no plausible reason has been given for condonation of delay. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mewa Ram (Deceased) by his LRs and others vs 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 vs 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 vs 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 1231 days was filed by the applicants-appellants before this Court on 27.9.2006 stating therein that some of the co-sharers had filed appeal in this court and they stated that the appellants need not to file appeal as they all will get the same relief in one appeal. In the last week of September 2006, when they met their present counsel, they came to know that they have to file separate appeal in this court. Thereafter, the appellants obtained the certified copy and filed the present appeal along with application for condonation of delay. However, no affidavit of the co-sharers or the Advocate has been filed in support of the averments made in the application. No reason is also forthcoming as to why the applicants- appellants were not following their case diligently. RFA No. 2030 of 2009 (3) Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, prima facie, I do not find that the cause shown by the applicants-appellants for condonation of delay of 1231 days in filing the appeal is sufficient. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal as well as application for condonation of delay in refiling the appeal are also dismissed. However, the same will not debar the applicants-appellants to claim same compensation as has been allegedly awarded to the co-sharers in their khewat, in case they are entitled to, in accordance with law. 11.2.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge