( 1 ) IN this group of 20 applications a common question of condonation of delay on the common ground is involved, therefore, upon request they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) THE condonation of delay in filing First Appeals against the common award of the Reference Court, Ahmedabad, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act), is sought to be condoned inter-alia pleading that there is a delay of 146 days on the part of the applicant - Special Land Acquisition Officer, on the grounds stated, elaborately, in para. 2, which is supported by an affidavit of the officer of the Legal Department of the State of Gujarat. The delay is, therefore, sought to be condoned on the ground of inter and intra departmental procedural delay, since the decision making process for challenging the common award of the Reference Court was to be crystallized, after having consultation and discussions with various departments inter-alia mainly, General Administration, Roads and Building, Finance and Legal Department after the certified copies having been received from the concerned law officers, who conducted the cases at the District level, in view of the provisions of Law Officers Rules 132 and 133.

( 3 ) IT has been evidently and unambiguously articulated in para. 2 of the appliciations that the process which the file had to undergo for maturing the decision of questioning the awards. It is in this context, the delay of 146 days in filing a group of 22 appeals has been sought to be condoned by invoking the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The grounds stated in this group of applications are supported by an affidavit of responsible officer of the Legal Department of the State of Gujarat.

( 4 ) IN course of the hearing the learned advocate for the opponents has, also, raised objection not only against the condonation of delay of 146 days in presenting the appeals late, but also on the ground that there is a delay of 177 days after the presentation of the appeals as required Court fees stamps had not been affixed and, therefore, until the Court fees stamps were affixed, the period of limitation would not stop and it is in this context it has been submitted that there is as such total delay of 323 days in filing the appeals. It is, also, further submitted that there is no justification, worth the name, on record as to why, there was delay of 177 days. So in the entire group of applications seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals against the common award of the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act is, seriously, questioned.

( 5 ) THE Learned Government Pleader (G. P.) appearing for the applicants has relied on the grounds stated in the applications and has reiterated them before us. It would not be necessary nor expedient to repeat the same grounds, nonetheless a factual profile which has emerged in the grounds stated in the group of applications may be highlighted, as follows :-I. That in order to challenge or question the decision of the Reference Court, the certified true copies are required to be obtained by the advocates of the Government, at the district level, in such a groups. It will be interesting to note that the decision rendered by the Reference Court in a group of references came to be finalised and crystalised in the common judgment, on 27/5/1999. There is no dispute about the fact that the day on which the common judgment in respect of references under the Act came to be decided by a common judgment by the District Court under Section 18 of the Act, the certified copy came to be applied for immediately on the same day. This shows that the department concerned and also the law officer in-charge of the group of references had a clear animus to challenge the verdict recorded by the Reference Court by passing common judgment in reference cases under Section 18 of the Act. Of-course making an application within the period of limitation is one of the considerations and is n