D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.

This appeal is a classic case which demonstrates as to how gross dereliction, incompetence and carelessness on the part of not one Counsel, but a series of Counsel can deprive a litigant of his legitimate entitlements in law particularly when Counsel accepting the engagement and responsibility from a litigant does not go about their duty and responsibility in a professional manner.

2. Added to this, if the litigants themselves are not diligent in pursuing the remedies available in law and sleep over their rights and remedies for long periods. A combination of these two traits can only be disastrous to a litigant and can even have a backlash on the Counsel, who perhaps have failed in their duties.

3. This appeal is a simple one under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) by a land owner, who was not satisfied with the quantum of compensation as determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, pursued the matter before the Civil Court by seeking a reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act was not satisfied with the enhancement, allowed before the Civil Court and has taken his chan