The court emphasized that while a liberal approach is generally applied in condoning delays under the Limitation Act, lack of sufficient cause, particularly evident inactivity, precludes such discretion.

ORDER :

1. The captioned Civil Applications are filed under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963 for condonation of delay of 1151 days caused in preferring the First Appeal.

2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

3. Challenge is made by the applicants against the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2018 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jamnagar in Land Reference Case Nos. 35 and 36 of 2011 in group Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 35 to 37 of 2011.

4. The original claimants filed Land Reference cases under Section 18 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1984 (for short ‘the Act’) for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 09.09.2010.

4.1 The lands of the claimants situated in village Khoja Beraja, Tal & Dist. Jamnagar were acquired for the purpose of construction of Padana Patiya to Changa Patiya Road Scheme. The Notification under Section 4 sub-section (1) of the said Act was issued in the official Gazette on 21.05.2008. The Land Acquisition Officer by his order dated 09.09.2008 awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 8/- to Rs. 11/- per square meters.

4.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said Award of compensation, claimants filed application under Section 18 of the said Act for enhancement of compensation before the learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jamnagar, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 30.06.2018. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said decision, the applicants are before this Court.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Tejas Satta for the applicants has contended that the delay caused in filing the Appeal is not intentional and the applicants have explained the delay sufficiently. Learned advocate for the applicants has relied upon Paras 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 to 12 of the memo of application. The same are reproduced herein-below:

“2. The applicant submits that after the pronouncement of judgment, the advocate for the applicant initially did not inform to the applicant about the judgment but the applicant came to meet the advocate of the Reference Court after Diwali in the month of November, 2018 where he informed to the applicant that the matter is decided by the Reference Court. Therefore, the applicant at that time showed his grievance. The advocate advised him for preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court and also mentioned that he would inform the applicant after inquiring about the same.

3. The applicant submits that, the applicant was waiting for the information by the advocate of the Reference Court but he did not contact the applicant. The applicant went to meet the advocate of the Reference Court after Uttrayan in the month of January, 2019. The advocate told the applicant that due to busy schedule of his, he could not contact the advocate of Hon’ble High Court. So, he asked for a few days time and would promptly inform him back about the same.

4. The applicant submits that, the advocate of the Reference Court contacted the applicant to meet him for further procedure to file an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court in the month of March, 2019.

5. The applicant submits that, the applicant went to meet the advocate of the Reference Court in the month of May, 2019. There, the advocate informed him the procedure and gave him the name and address of advocate of the Hon’ble High Court.

6. The applicant submits that, the applicant was sick for some time and so could meet the advoc