The social and economic condition of the appellant, including educational background and other limitations, are important factors in condoning delay. The choice of advocate is the appellant's responsibility, and blaming the advocate does not absolve the appellant of negligence.

1. This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 impugns the judgment and decree [dated 18th January, 2011 in LAC No.285A/09 (Unique ID No.02404C0232652009) of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Rohini] on a reference under Section 18 of the Act.

2. The appeal is accompanied with an application for condonation of 1610 days delay in filing thereof.

3. The appeal and the application came up first before this Court on 22nd September, 2015 when time of four weeks sought to make up deficiency in court fees was granted. Vide order dated 5th November, 2015, notice of the appeal and the application for condonation of delay was issued. The counsel for the respondent no.1 Union of India (UOI) and the counsel for the respondent no.2 Delhi Development Authority (DDA) have been appearing.

4. Vide order dated 6th September, 2016, reference to a Larger Bench was made on the aspect of condonation of delay. The Larger Bench has since vide judgment dated 13th April, 2018 reported as Pratap Singh Vs. UOI (2018) 249 DLT 670 answered the reference and where after the application for condonation of delay is listed for consideration in terms of the answer in the reference to the Larger Bench.

5. The counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the respondent no.1 UOI have been heard.

6. The Land Acquisition Collector determined the market price of acquired land, at Rs.15,70,000/- per acre for land falling in block-A, at Rs.14,00,000/- per acre for land falling in block-B and at Rs.12,30,000/- per acre for land failing in block-C. The appellant being dissatisfied therewith, sought reference.

7. The Reference Court, in the impugned judgment, has reasoned/held/observed (i) that the onus was on the appellant to prove that he was entitled for enhancement in compensation; (ii) however the appellant had failed to appear despite repeated opportunities and had thus failed to prove his case; and, (iii) the appellant was thus not entitled to any enhancement in compensation.

8. The appellant, in the memorandum of appeal, has pleaded (i) that in October, 2013, when the appellant enquired from other villagers who got enhanced compensation, they informed the appellant that his case should have been decided along with that of other villagers who had also sought reference along with the appellant; (ii) that the appellant then contacted his counsel but the counsel did not give any satisfactory answer; (iii) the appellant appointed a new counsel who enquired about the status of the case from the Court file and found that the case had already been decided on merits, without the appellant having led any evidence and thus no enhancement in compensation had been granted to the appellant; (iv) that on 28th November, 2013, the appellant filed a complaint against his previous counsel with the Rohini Court Bar Association for negligence; (v) the appellant, on 2nd December, 2013, made an application to the Reference Court for recall of the order dated 21st September, 2010 closing the evidence of the appellant as well as for recall of the judgment dated 18th January, 2011 and for decision of the reference afresh; (vi) that it was the plea of the appellant in the aforesaid application that the counsel engaged by the appellant was responsible for not providing the evidence even after ample opportunities were granted by the Reference Court and the said counsel did not even inform the appellant and that the appellant was a layman and should not suffer; (vii) that the Reference Court, on 20th July, 2015 informed the counsel for the appellant that the application was not maintainable; and, (viii) the appellant thereafter withdrew the application and has filed this appeal.

9. The reason given, in the application for condonation of delay is the same as what is stated in the memorandum of appeal aforesaid.

10. This appeal was filed in this Court first on 15th September, 2015.

11. The Larger Bench aforesaid, on the aspect of condonation of delay in land acquisitio