JUDGMENT Mr. Rajesh Bindal, J.:- The present appeal has been filed by the landowner seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Along with the appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 19 years 45 days has also been filed. 2. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 22.8.1988, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), the State of Haryana acquired land in Village Mewla Maharajpur, Hadbast No. 4, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad, for development and utilisation thereof as residential and commercial area in Sector-46, Part-II of Faridabad-Ballabgarh. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 30.3.1990 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 3,50,000/- per acre for chahi, and Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre for narmot and gair mumkin kinds of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowner filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 101/- per square yard vide award dated 14.1.1992. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal. 3. 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 19 years 45 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. 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. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 5. 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. 6. 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 7. 6. 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 7. 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. 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 finally disposed of vide judgment dated 27.7.2005, passed in LPA No. 920 of 1994 – Horam vs Haryana State. 9. The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 19 years 45 days was filed by the applicant-appellant before this Court on 28.2.2011 stating therein that the appellant was under the bonafide belief that any enhancement that may be awarded in case of other landowners, the same amount would also be awarded to other landowners. Under this bonafide belief, he did not file the appeal earlier. The reason given by the appellant for not filing appeal in this court cannot be accepted. 10 Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I do not find that the cause shown by the applicant-appellant for condonation of delay of 19 years 45 days in filing the appeal is sufficient. 11. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------