( 1 ) THE Delhi Administration vide notification dated October 20, 1961 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) notified that it appeared to the appropriate Government that land specified therein was needed for a public purpose, namely, for the planned development of Delhi. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made by the Delhi Administration vide notification dated March 27, 1963. This was in respect of 865 bighas 14 biswas of land in village Asalatpur Khadar, Tehsil and District Delhi. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short called the Collector) made his award No. 1685 and notified it on March 19, 1964. The Collector directed that the owners and the interested persons would be paid compensation according to the shares as entered in Jamabandi of the village. There were occupancy tenants as well as non-occupancy tenants in the land under acquisition. Occupancy tenants were held entitled to a substantial amount of compensation i. e. 87 Paise in a rupee for the land acquired and the owners were awarded 13 Paise in a rupee for the land acquired.

( 2 ) SINCE the owners and the tenants had not come to an amicable settlement, the Collector referred the case to the Court for apportionment and disbursement of the compensation to the entitled persons. The Collector enclosed a cheque dated July 27, 1964 for Rs. 13,151. 22 being the disputed amount. It was registered as L. A. C. 102/64 for determination of the respective rights of the land owners and the occupancy tenants in the acquired area in the estate of Asalatpur Khadar to which award No. 1685 related. Shri Hans Raj, the learned Additional District Judge answered the reference in the order dated August 17, 1966 and directed that the compensation amount for the acquired land be apportioned between the land owners and occupancy tenant in equal shares. An appeal under Section 54 of the Act was filed on September 19, 1966 by the occupancy tenants praying for setting aside the judgment and order dated August 17, 1966 and for awarding to the appellants the amount of compensation as awarded by the Collector. The appeal was admitted to D. B. by the order dated October 7, 1966.

( 3 ) DURING the pendency of the appeal, an information was given on January 14, 1981 by Shri H. L. Dutt, Advocate appearing for some of the respondents that respondents 3, 4 and 9 died on August 14, 1975, November 28, 1978 and June 16, 1973 respectively. The counsel for the appellants was given notice by this Court to show cause as to why the appeal should not be dismissed as having been abated. The appellants then filed an application under Order 22 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on February 16, 1981 tor bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased respondents 3, 4 and 9. This is C. W. 130/81. It was also accompanied by an application under Section 5 oi the Limitation Act, 1963 praying for condonation of delay in filing the petition for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased respondents 3, 4 and 9. This is C. M. 131/81.

( 4 ) THESE applications came up for hearing before S. B. Wad, J. The counsel for the appellants submitted that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Limitation Act do not apply to a proceeding under Section 30/31 of the Act as also to an appeal arising out of the said proceedings. One of the contentions raised was that there is a material difference in the object and procedure of the proceedings under Section 18 and Section 30/31 and that the procedure under Section 30 is inconsistent with the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure and thus Section 53 would not apply. During the hearing two cases were cited by the respondents before the learned Single Judge. In "union of India v. Rameshwar Nath and others", I. L. R. 1972 (1) Delhi 200, a question arose whether Order 2? of the Code of Civil Procedure was or was not applicable to a