The main legal point established in the judgment is that technicalities should not stand on the way to defeat a justified claim, and substantial justice should be done to parties, especially considering the background and circumstances of the litigants.

A. S. NAIDU, J.

( 1 ) LAND measuring Ac. 0. 413 decimals in village Reghunathapur under Tahsil Chhatrapur in the district of ganjam was acquired by the State for public purpose. The Notification under Section 4 (1)of the Land Acquisition Act was published on august 9, 1992. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,785. 30 paise. The original claimant having filed an application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Collector referred the case to the Subordinate Judge, Chhatrapur and the reference case was registered as MJC no. 80 of 1987. It appears that at the time of hearing of the said M. J. C. no one appeared on behalf of the claimant and the Subordinate judge. Chhatrapur by his judgment and order dated October 30, 1989 disposed of the said case by enhancing the solatium from 12% per annum to 13% per annum. After about 5 years on May 2, 1994. N. Budhiamma filed First appeal No. 181 of 1994 alongwith an application for condonation of delay in this Court.

( 2 ) IN the application for condonation of delay the appellant stated that about 15 days prior to filing of the First Appeal she came to know from a co-villager that the High Court in f. A: No. 195 of 1985 determined the market value of another piece of adjoining land acquired under the same Notification at Rs. 50,000/- per acre and that after coming to know about such determination of market value she decided to file the First Appeal. She also took the plea that she was an illiterate widow coming from rustic village and did not get proper legal advice to file appeal against the ex parte judgment and award of the Subordinate Judge. The Hon'ble Single Judge by his order dated August 9, 1994 refused to condone the delay on the ground that there was gross delay which was not satisfactorily explained and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. An application for recalling the said order was filed (Misc. Case No. 594 of 1994 ). By order dated August 25, 1994 said misc. case was also rejected. Against the said order of the Hon'ble Single Judge the present a. H. O. is filed by N. Budhiamma (since deceased ).

( 3 ) MR. Rath, appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the Hon'ble Single Judge should have adopted the liberal attitude while considering the application for condonation of delay and should have kept in mind the dictum of the Supreme Court that a litigant does not derive any benefit by making delay in filing an appeal or application. Mr. Rath has referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantanag and another v. Mst. Katiji and others; G. Ramagowda Major v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, and State of bihar and others v. Mameshwar Prasad Singh and another,. In all those decisions the Supreme Court emphasized the desirability of deciding the lis on merit than dismissing on grounds of limitation in appropriate cases. But that does not mean that the provisions of the limitation Act should be completely ignored and a person has the freedom of filing cases whenever he likes. What has been laid down by the Supreme Court is that, the explanation offered should be analysed liberally and unless there is unreasonable and inordinate delay due to gross negligence. Court should condone the same if some acceptable explanation is there.

( 4 ) IN the present case the appellant is an illiterate widow. In fact, she never thought of filing any appeal and was satisfied with the compensation given till she came to learn that the High Court awarded much higher compensation for acquisition of an adjoining land under the same Notification. The said judgment of the high Court was delivered on February 15, 1990. The First Appeal was filed four years thereafter and the present A. H. O. was filed on September 20, 1994. After death of the original appellant her son has filed application for substitution almost one year thereafter.

( 5 ) MR. Rath has further stated that the o