ORDER

Leave granted.

2. It appears that the High Court was wrongly led into thinking that Order XXII Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code would squarely apply in the matter and hence a Division Bench of the High Court proceeded to consider whether there was sufficient cause for the long delay in making an application under the above Rule for substitution of the legal representatives of a deceased party. The Division Bench found that there was no proper explanation for the long delay and hence rejected the application as though it is one for impleadment of legal representatives of the deceased party. Consequently the appeal filed by the State in challenge of an award passed by a Reference Court under the Land Acquisition Act stood rejected as barred by limitation.

3. The second Additional Sub-Court, Trivandrum passed the award in the aforesaid land acquisition matter on a reference being made under Section 18 of the Act. The date of the said award of the Reference Court is 12.11.1991. It appears that the Reference Court enhanced land value from Rs.1,05,377 to nearly rupees 17 lakhs. The State of Kerala filed an appeal before the High Court on 20.6.1992 without noticing that the sole resp