JUDGMENT Mr. Rajesh Bindal, J.:- The present appeal has been filed by the landowners seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Along with the appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 2,524 days has also been filed. 2. Briefly, the facts are that land situated within the revenue estate of Village Manesar, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, was acquired vide notification dated 30.4.1994 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) for setting up of Industrial Model Township, Manesar. The same was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 30.3.1995. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, ‘the Collector’) vide his award dated 28.3.1997 assessed the compensation for the acquired land @ Rs.3,67,400/- per acre. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned court below. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, learned court below vide award dated 20.8.2004 determined the fair value of the acquired land @ Rs.6,51,994.13 per acre for ‘A’ class land i.e. situated around 500 yards from National Highway No. 8 and Rs.3,91,196.67 per acre for the remaining land. It is this award which is challenged in the present appeal. Along with the appeal, application seeking condonation of delay of 2,524 days has also been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants relied upon Dilbagh Singh vs Collector Land Acquisition Industries Department, 2003 (1) RLR 102 to submit that delay 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. 4. Heard learned counsel for the applicants-appellants and perused the record. 5. 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. 6. In State of Nagaland vs Lipokao and others, [2005(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 400 (SC)] : (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 7. 6. In State of Nagaland vs Lipokao and others, [2005(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 400 (SC)] : (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 7. 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. 8. 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 disposed of vide judgment dated 5.9.2008, passed in RFA No. 2587 of 2004– M/s Opera House Creations Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Haryana and another. Thereafter, even the appeals pertaining to the acquisition in question filed before Hon’ble the Supreme Court were also decided on 17.8.2010 vide judgment in Civil Appeal No. 6515 of 2009 Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation vs Pran Sukh and others. 9. The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 2,524 days was filed by the applicants-appellants before this Court on 18.10.2011 stating therein that they were not aware of the decision of reference petition till 28.11.2010. They came to know about this fact when appellant no. 1 met Shri Satish Yadav, Advocate. It was submitted that appellant no. 1, who is illiterate person, misunderstood that the said advocate would himself arrange for filing of the appeal in this court. When he again met the said Advocate, he was told that he has not filed the appeal, as he had to complete certain formalities. Thereafter, the appellants filed the present appeal along with application for condonation of delay. However, no affidavit of said 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. 10. Thereafter, the appellants filed the present appeal along with application for condonation of delay. However, no affidavit of said 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. 10. Another ground raised by the counsel for the applicantsappellants for condonation of delay is that review application against the judgment in Pran Sukh’s case (supra), arising out of the same acquisition are pending before Hon’ble the Supreme Court, whereas the fact remains that review Application has been filed by HSIIDC and further that this Court had decided first batch of cases arising out of the acquisition vide judgment dated 5.9.2008 in M/s Opera House Creations Pvt. Ltd.’s case (supra). The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay was filed much after the decision in that case. 11. A full Bench of this Court in Smt. Tara Wanti v. State of Haryana, (1994-2) PLR 761 opined that mere pendency of another appeal arising out of same acquisition cannot be held to be sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 12. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I do not find that the cause shown by the applicants-appellants for condonation of delay of 2,524 days in filing the appeal is sufficient. 13. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal as well as other applications are also dismissed. --------------