The main legal point established in the judgment is that the discretion to condone delay must be exercised judiciously and reasonably, and that reasonable and justifiable grounds for delay condonation are essential, especially in land acquisition matters.

JUDGMENT

Y.G.KHOBRAGADE,J. - The applicants have filed the present application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and prayed for condonation of delay of 3776 days caused in filing Appeal against the judgment and award dtd. 4/10/2011 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedpur, District Latur in L.A.R. No.683 of 2002.

2. Heard Mrs. P. G. Sontakke, learned Advocate for the applicants and Mr. R. V. Dasalkar, learned AGP for non-applicant Nos.1 and 2. Though the non-applicant No.3 served, but remained absent.

3. Having regard to submissions canvassed on behalf of both sides, we have gone through the record. Applicants were the owners and possessors of land Survey/Gut No.123 admeasuring 4 Hectare 20 Are (i.e. 4,57,380 square feet) situated at village Tembhurni, Taluka Ahmedpur, District Latur. That land was acquired by the non-applicant No.3 Acquiring Body for public project as per Notification dtd. 14/12/1997 published under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. On 15/1/2001 the Land Acquisition Officer determined compensation in respect of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.30,000.00 per Hectare, which was accepted by the applicants under protest.

4. Being dissatisfaction with said award dtd. 15/1/2001, the applicants preferred reference bearing L.A.R. No.683/2002 under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedpur and claimed compensation of acquired land at the rate of Rs.90.00 per square feet along with statutory benefits. The learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedpur, has partly allowed said LAR No.683/2002 on 4/10/2011 and granted compensation at the rate Rs.36,000.00 per Acre with statutory benefits. Being dissatisfaction of said award dtd. 4/10/2011, the applicants/ original claimants intend to file appeal, by invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Sec. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, since there is delay, in approaching this Court, they have filed present application.

5. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicants submitted that the original award holder No.2 Gajrabai was suffering from serious ailment, therefore, her husband award holder No.1 Nagnath was taking her care. Unfortunately, Smt. Gajrabai died on 10/5/2015 due to her ailment. Original award holder No.1 Nagnath also died on 15/8/2018 at the age of 85 years, due to the depression because of death of wife Gajrabai. The applicants 1 and 2 are the legal heirs of original award holders 1 and 2, but they were not having knowledge about pendency of land acquisition proceeding. Therefore, they preferred application for issuance of heir-ship certificate before the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmedpur, District Latur. The learned Civil Court granted legal heir certificate in their favour on 30/8/2019. Since the applicants 1 and 2 were helpless due to death of their father. After receiving legal advice from their Counsel, they decided to file appeal. However, delay of 3776 days has been caused in filing appeal. The said delay is bona-fide and not intentional. Hence, prayed for condonation of the same.

6. In support of the submissions, the learned Advocate for the applicants relied on the case of Tukaram Kana Joshi and others Vs. M.I.D.C., passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 2/11/2012 in Civil Appeal No.7780/2012, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the question of condonation of delay is one of discretion and has to be decided on the basis of the facts of the case at hand, as the same vary from case to case. In para Nos. 11 to 15, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

"11. The question of condonation of delay is one of discretion and has to be decided on the basis of the facts of the case at hand, as the same vary from case to case. It will depend upon what the breach of fundamental right and the remedy claimed are and when and how the delay arose. It is not that there is any p