ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. Feeling aggrieved by order dated 5.9.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the application filed by them under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of 1110 days' delay, the appellants have moved this Court.

3. The appellants land situated in Village Wazirabad, Tehsil and District Gurgaon was part of large chunk of land measuring 193.1 acres acquired by the Government of Haryana vide notification dated 15.5.1997 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), which was followed by declaration dated 4.5.1998 issued under Section 6(1) of the Act. The purpose of acquisition was development of Sector-52 for residential, commercial and institutional purpose in District Gurgaon.

4. The Land Acquisition Collector passed award dated 3.5.2000 whereby he fixed market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 12,00,000 per acre for Chahi, Rs. 9,60,000/- per acre Allabarani, Rs. 8,40,000/- per acre Bhood land and Rs. 7,20,090/- per acre for Banjar land.

5. Feeling dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, the appellants filed application under Section 18 of the Act for determination of the amount of compensation by the Court. Additional District Judge, Gurgaon to whom the reference was entrusted considered the evidence produced by the parties and held that the appellants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 717 per sq. yard with other statutory benefits.

6. A number of landowners filed appeals under Section 54 of the Act, which were disposed of by the learned Single Judge of the High Court vide judgment dated 1.10.2010 with the title case - Sudama and others v. State of Haryana, RFA No. 1824 of 2006 and enhanced the compensation from Rs. 717 per sq. yards to Rs. 1,216 per sq. yards.

7. After almost three years of the disposal of other appeals, the appellants filed RFA No.5477/2011. They also filed CM No.12357- CI/2011 for condonation of 1110 days' delay. The learned Single Judge of the High Court did not feel satisfied with the cause shown by the appellants and dismissed the application for condonation of delay by assigning the following reasons :

"Thus, a perusal of the averments made in this application would show that the appellants had given their brief to other claimants to file an appeal before this Court and they came to know from the judgment of this Court that the other claimants have not filed an appeal on their behalf and in view of the aforesaid fact, the delay of 1110 days has been caused in filing this appeal. The explanation given by the appellants is not believable. So much so, the appellants have not mentioned the names of the other claimants to whom they have entrusted their appeals for filing before this Court. Even otherwise, it is not believable that a villager whose land has been acquired will not enquire about his case from a co-villager through whom the said appeal was filed, allegedly, for such a long period.

The averments made in this application shows that the appellants had been negligent and casual in their approach to file the appeal and they have woken up only when this Court had enhanced the compensation in other appeals. Thus, the explanation given is not accepted.

No sufficient cause to condone the extra ordinary delay has been shown, therefore, prayer for condoning the delay in filing this appeal is rejected."

8. As a sequel to dismissal of the application for condonation of delay, the appeal filed under Section 54 was dismissed as barred by time.

9. Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants argued that the impugned order is liable to be set aside because the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge in dealing with the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was hyper-technical and he ignored the fact that in identical matters another learned Single Judge had allowed the appeals filed under Section 54 of the