(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) WE have heard learned counsel on both sides.

(3) THIS appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the division bench of the Delhi High court made on 14/7/1992 in LPA No. 36 of 1992 dismissing the LPA. The learned Single Judge had allowed the Writ Petition No. 936 of 1989 on the ground that there was no justification for invoking the urgency clause in Section 17(4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894 (for short "the Act"). Accordingly, the learned Single Judge quashed the declaration under Section 6. The division bench dismissed the LPA on the ground that there was inordinate delay of more than 200 days in filing the appeal. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

(4) WHEN the matter had come up before us and the respondents pointed out that the land involved is only two bighas and, therefore, it is not a case warranting interference. We directed the learned counsel for the Union of India to find out as to why they are insisting upon decision on merits. A statement was made by Shri K.T.S. Tuisi, learned Additional Solicitor General that there are number of cases of the similar nature pending in the High court awaiting the decision of this court and, therefore, decision on merits was necessary. We accordingly set the case for hearing on merits. The learned counsel for the parties have filed their written submissions.

(5) WE have heard Shri N.N. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Shri G.L. Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. The admitted position is that the notification under Section 4(1 of the Act was published on 9/2/1989 acquiring 1328 bighas of land situated in Siraspur and Libaspur. The enquiry under Section 5-A was dispensed with. Declaration under Section 6 was published on 7/2/1990. The writ petition was filed on 5/3/1990. Two Awards Nos. 8 and 9 of 1991 came to be made on 7/2/1992 in respect of the land except these two bighas of land which are the subject-matter in this case. Since the learned Judge had quashed the notification, two questions have been raised and argued by the learned counsel for the parties. The first question relates to the delay in filing the LPA. It is seen that the learned Single Judge passed the order on 5/3/1990 and a certified copy of the judgment was obtained by the counsel appearing for the government on 12/7/1990 and a letter was addressed immediately on 31/7/1990 directing the government Pleader to file the appeal. Instead of filing the appeal, he had given the opinion two months thereafter on 4/11/19900 that it was not a fit case. Accordingly, he did not file the appeal. When the matter was re-examined since a large number of cases were involved, new government Pleader opined on 16/4/1992 that it was a fit case for filing the appeal. Accordingly, LPA came to be filed. Shri Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, contended that delay has not been properly explained. The question is whether delay on the part of the appellants in filing the appeal has been explained? It is seen that as soon as the copy of the judgment of the learned Single Judge was received by the government within 18 days from the date of the receipt of the judgment, letter was written to the government Pleader to file the appeal. He had no business to give opinion at that stage that it is not a fit case for filing the appeal. After the lapse of two months, he sent the letter. Obviously, relying upon that opinion, no further action was taken. When the matter reached the government of India, it got the same re-examined and the government Pleader gave his opinion. Unless this matter is challenged, all the other cases would follow the suit and law being laid down in the appeal would be applicable and the notification would get quashed. Resultantly, the decision was taken to file the appeal. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that though there is considerable delay in filing the appeal, the division