ORDER :- In these special leave petitions which are much belated, the only question was whether the Court should entertain the petitions despite the delay and grant special leave merely because this Court in Paltu Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana and Nand Kishore & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. (Civil Appeals Nos. 1251 and 1252 of 1982, both decided on April 1, 1982) enhanced the rate of compensation for the adjacent land acquired to Rs. 17.50 per square yard. The petition of Mewa Ram is barred by 1079 days, that of Pat Ram by 1146 days and of Ram Sarup by 1098 days. We heard the matter thrice on the question whether there was any sufficient cause for condonation of delay under S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. We were not satisfied that there was any cause much less sufficient cause within the meaning of S. 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The petitioners then took time to file further and better affidavits explaining the unexplained, inordinate delay in moving the Court.

2. At the resumed hearing Shri S. N. Kacker, learned counsel for the petitioners, confines his submission to the change in law by the introduction of Ss. 25 and 28A by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act 68 of 1984) and places particular emphasis to Para (ix) of the Objects and Reasons, to the effect :

"Considering that the right of reference to the civil court under S. 18 of the Act is not usually taken advantage of by inarticulate and poor people and is usually exercised only by the comparatively affluent landowners and that this causes considerable inequality in the payment of compensation for the same or similar quality of land to different interested parties, it is proposed to provide an opportunity to all aggrieved parties whose land is covered under the same notification to seek re-determination of compensation, once any one of them has obtained orders for payment of higher compensation from the reference court under S. 18 of the Act."

3. The learned counsel contends on the strength of the provisions contained in Ss. 25 and 28A that the Court should not be unduly technical and deprive the citizens of their legitimate claims. In support of his submission he relies on certain observations made by this Court in Madras Port Trust v. Hymanshu International by its Proprietor V. Venkatadri (dead) by Lrs. (1979 ) 4 SCC 176 : (AIR 1979 SC 1144) to the effect that plea of limitation by the Government to defeat just claims of citizens should not be countenanced. We are afraid, the contention cannot prevail.

4. Shri Kacker, learned counsel for the petitioners, with his usual fairness, accepts that S. 28A in terms does not apply to the case of the petitioners for more than one reason. In the first place, they do not belong to that class of society for whose benefit the provision is intended and meant i.e. inarticulate and poor people who by reason of their poverty and ignorance have failed to take advantage of the right of reference to the civil court under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. On the contrary, the petitioners belong to an affluent class, and they are not persons who have been deprived of property without payment of compensation. The petitioners had all applied for reference under S. 18 of the Act and the civil court by adopting a different basis for computation, namely, treating the land to be potential building site, substantially enhanced the amount of compensation. On appeal, there was further enhancement by the High Court. The petitioners have withdrawn large sums of money at each stage. For instance, the petitioner Mewa Ram withdrew on February 6, 1976 consequent upon the award of the Land Acquisition Collector Rs. 1, 19,000, an additional sum of Rs. 28,938.20p. on March 23, 1978 after the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, and Rs. 2,75,105.42p. after the judgment of the High Court between December 11, 1981 and February 13, 1982. The judgment of the High Court not having been appealed from has a