The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to show sufficient cause for delay as per Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the need for a reasonable and plausible explanation, absence of negligence or malafides, and the presence of legal and adequate reasons to condone the delay.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. (Oral). - The hearing of the case was held through video conferencing on account of restricted functioning of the Courts.

The appellants pray for condoning the delay of 6313 days (more than 17 years) in filing the appeal. The land owned by the predecessors of the appellants located in Village Khandsa, Tehsil and District Gurugram, has been acquired for public purposes, namely, for industrial, residential, construction of roads and retention of green-belts in Sector 37, Gurugram, vide notification dated 22.07.1996, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1894 Act”). The Land Acquisition Collector passed an Award No.10 dated 30.12.1998, while assessing the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.7,05,000/- per acre. The predecessors of the appellants along with other owners applied for reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, which was duly referred to the Court of Additional District Judge, Gurugram. The aforesaid reference along with cases of various other owners who applied for reference were decided by the Additional District Judge vide an Award dated 27.08.2002. The predecessors of the appellants did not file an appeal under Section 54 of the 1894 Act, whereas, various other owners did file the appeals under the aforementioned provision of the 1894 Act. The appeals filed by the various other owners came to be decided by this Court on 23.09.2014, enhancing the market value of the land from Rs.13,72,750/- to Rs.20,66,000/- per acre.

The appellants claim that they are also entitled to the same amount of the compensation as has been ordered to be paid to various other owners of the land. The appellants seek condonation of delay of 6313 days on the following ground:-

“That Sh. Shanti Sarup alias Shanti Swarup (since deceased) used to deal with this case and he died on 01.04.2019. That after the death of Sh. Shanti Sarup, now the applicants-appellants came to know about this matter that the case has been decided vide Award dated 27.08.2002 by the learned Reference Court Gurugram and thereafter, appeal filed by the State against this award has also been decided by this Hon'ble Court vide judgment dated 23.09.2014. After the death of the deceased Sh. Shanti Sarup his Will was revealed and when the information was received about it only then the applicants came to know about this litigation.

It is humbly submitted that the appellants are poor persons and belong to rural area of Haryana State. After finding out this litigation and arranging the money, the applicants-appellants have engaged the present counsel and now are filing the present appeal before this Hon'ble Court. Due to this reason a delay of 6313 days has occurred which is neither intentionally nor knowingly, but it is bonafide mistake on the part of the appellants.”

It is crystal clear that late Sh. Shanti Sarup died on 01.04.2019, whereas, the Reference Court decided the cases on 27.08.2002. There is no justifiable explanation as to why late Sh. Shanti Sarup did not opt to file the appeal, particularly, when various other owners did file their appeals. The High Court decided the appeals of the various other owners in September, 2014, still the appellants did not wake up from their deep slumber.

Unequivocally, while considering the application for condonation of delay, the Court is required to adopt a pragmatic view. However, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, provides that the delay can be condoned only, if the sufficient cause is shown. This Bench while deciding Regular First Appeal No.673 of 2021, after discussing the various judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has held as under:-

“5. Now, the question, which arises is as to whether the Court should condone the delay without looking into the reasons given in the application? The 1963 Act is a statute of repose. The Act provides that the appellant is required to explain sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. No