The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal interpretation of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in land acquisition cases to ensure substantial justice and consider the practical difficulties faced by the parties.

ORDER :

SONIA GOKANI, J.

1. Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent – State.

2. The group of applicants, who are before this Court seeking to condone the delay of 2488 and 2458 days respectively, challenging the judgment and order dated 21.02.2013 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge in Land Reference Cases at Junagadh.

3. It emerges from the record that the possession of the lands of the applicants had been taken over by the State in the year 2000. Additional compensation had been given at the rate of Rs.32.40 per square meters for irrigated land and Rs.25.87 per square meters for Jirayat land and Rs.11.14 per square meters for non-used/ uncultivated land. Additional compensation was given at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of 30 months and solatium at the rate of 30% on the said amount. This has aggrieved the applicants, whose main grievance is that the sale instances of the very village, whereby the market value of the land had been fixed at Rs.75 has not been taken into consideration by the Reference Court.

3.1. It is further their say that they were without the land and any compensation for the period of nearly 10 years and therefore, could not have sufficient fund to file appeals. Hence, the request is made to condone the delay of 2488 and 2458 days relying on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of K. Subbarayadu and others vs. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), reported in 2017 12 SCC 840. It was an appeal under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the Apex Court where the delay of 3671 days has been condoned by the Apex Court by striking the balance that for the delay which has been caused, no interest would be chargeable.

4. This Court has heard the learned advocate, Mr.Nitin Amin appearing for the applicants and learned Assistant Government Pleader, Ms. Dhwani Tripathi for respondent- State.

5. Learned advocate, Mr.Nitin Amin has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in case of K. Subbarayadu and others (supra) and has urged that the practical difficulty of the appellants needs to be born in mind. He has further urged that this Court in Civil Application No.01 of 2019 in First Appeal No.8076 of 2019 has also condoned the huge delay in bringing the heirs of the Land Reference Court on record. He has further pointed out that sufficient cause as mentioned in the provision as per the decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of S.Ganeshraju (D) Thr. L.Rs.& Another vs. Narasamma (D) Thr. L.Rs. & others,reported in 2012 (4) Scale 152 shall need to be given a liberal meaning. There are fair chances to succeed in the appeal and the plight of the agriculturist shall be considered sympathetically. He has urged that he has already paid the price for his not having approached this Court well within time, as per the said decision of the Apex Court where he may not claim the interest for the delayed period.

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, Ms. Dhwani Tripathi has strongly objected to this on the ground that the delay is huge and there is no sufficient explanation. She has further urged that the phrases used are standard and do not indicate anything in particulars with regard to the conditions of the applicants, the Court may not condone the delay when delay of each day needs to be explained by the party.

7. Having heard learned advocates on both the sides and also having taken into consideration the explanation, this Court noticed that the judgment and order of the Reference Court dated 21.02.2013 where of course there is a some rise in the amount of compensation. The applicants are before this Court indicating that for the very village the sale instances of Rs.75 per square meters for irrigated land. It is also matter of record that the land has been acquired in the year 2000 and the applicants being the agriculturist would have no other means to sustain themselves. In that circumstances, they have pleaded the