In land acquisition cases, the court should exercise its discretion to condone delays in filing appeals on a case-by-case basis, considering both the public interest and the interest of the person deprived of their land without consent. The court should also ensure strict construction of the Land Acquisition Act and provide adequate staffing in land acquisition offices and government advocate offices.

( 1 ) --THIS is a land acquisition Regular First Appeal filed by the Union of India against the order of the District Judge. The Land Acquisition Collector had awarded Rs. 4. 00o. 00 per bigha. The District Judge raised it to Rs. 12. 000. 00 per bigha. the contention in the appeal is that the enhancement should not have been beyond Rs. 7,000. 00. The award was made by the Collector in this case on 13. 11. 1981. Another question raised in the appeal is whether the additional benefits under section 2- (l) (after the amendment) can be given in the award rendered pi ior to the amendment. On the second question large number of appeals were hied in the Supreme Court. They are already heard and the judgment is awaited.

( 2 ) THERE is a delay of eighty days in filing the appeal. The averments in the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code are ; (1) That the limitation for the above noted appeal expired on 8th July 1987, (2) that there is delay of eighty days in filing the appeal, (3) that the delay in filing the appeal has occasioned due to the fact that it took sometime for the concerned Department, that is. Land Acquisition Collector, Tis Hazari, Delhi, to furnish the relevant documents and arrange for the court-fees, and (4) that the delay in filing the appeal is bona fide and not intentional.

( 3 ) WE are not satisfied with the creptic and routine explanation viz. that the Department took time to furnish the relevant documents and to arrange for the court-fees . We have decided to write a reasoned judgment in this matter because ths is not an isolated case as hundreds of such appeals are being filed in this court in which invariably there is a delay in filing the appeals. There is hardly any satisfactory explanation furnished, nor any particulars in regard to the dates and stages of consideration are mentioned in the applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

( 4 ) THE counsel for the appellant has, however, relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in Mewa Ram (deceased by L. Rs.) and others v. Stale of Haryana, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 45, Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst. Katiji and others, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1353 and G. Ramegowda, Major etc. v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer. Bangahre, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 897. Alr 1987. Supreme Court 45 has no bearing on the present case. In that case the Supreme Court held that claimants cannot plead their own laches assufficient ground for condonation of delay. In AIR 1983 Supreme Court 1353 the Collector had awarded Rs. l,000. 00 per kanal while the District Judge enhanced it to Rs.-8,000. 00 per kanal. There was only four days delay in filing the appeal.-The Jammu and Kashmir High Court did not condone the delay and dismissed the Government s appeal. The Supreme Court held that an important question relating the principles of valuation was involved in the appeal and held that the High Crurt should have condoned the delay of four days. The Supreme Court further held that there is no warrant for according a stepmotherly treatment when the state is the applicant praying for condonation of delay. The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants including the State as litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner. In AIR 1^88 Supreme Court 897 for a land which was purchased in 1962 for Rs. 7,000. 00 the Collector awarded Rs, 58. 000. 00 per acre and it was raised tors,l,45,200. 00 by the District Judge. Section 4 notification was issued on 2. 3 1963, that is, just one year after the original purchase. Before the High Court the Government had urged that the Government Pleader incharge of the filing, of the appeal had played fraud on the Government by not filing the appeal in time. The Karnataka High Court had accepted the contention of the Government, as Government was put to loss o