Sanjiv Khanna, J.

A single Judge of this Court vide order dated 6th September, 2016, after referring to Dhiraj Singh (Dead) through Legal Representatives and Others versus State of Haryana and Others, (2014) 14 SCC 127, and different orders passed in land acquisition appeals condoning delay, and discerning that contra view has been expressed in other set of orders passed by another Single Judge in Land Acquisition Appeal No. 66/2013, Inder Singh versus Union of India & Ors., decided on 8th July, 2014, after referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mewa Ram (deceased) by his Legal Representatives & Others versus State of Haryana through The Land Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon, (1986) 4 SCC 151, Baswaraj and Others versus Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81 and Brijesh Kumar and Others versus State of Haryana and Others, (2014) 11 SCC 351 has made this Reference to a larger Bench observing as under:-

“7. It is, therefore, seen that there are one line of judgments of the Supreme Court which say that condonation of delay must be on the same principles which are otherwise applicable under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and that there should be no condonation of delay merely because the land holders have woken up on other land owners succeeding in their appeals and thereby getting higher compensation, other line of judgments as in the case of Dhiraj Singh (supra) hold that courts should be completely liberal in condoning the delay in filing Land Acquisitions Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act although appeals are delayed by many years.

8. Accordingly, let the present order and these Land Acquisition Appeals be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice on 19.9.2016 to constitute a Larger Bench to decide the reference question as to whether courts should apply normal principles under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delays in filing of Land Acquisition Appeals as held in the Supreme Court judgments referred to in the Judgment of this Court dated 8.7.2014 in the case of Inder Singh (supra) or that courts hearing applications for condonation of delays should take a liberal approach by condoning delay even if they be of years, and as held by the Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of Dhiraj Singh (supra) and which is followed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, Vipin Sanghi, J., in various land acquisition appeals including L.A. Appeal Nos. 282/2015, 374/2014 and 211/2014. An early date is given because the decision of the reference will affect large number of cases which are pending in this Court, including these cases in which by this order Hon’ble the Chief Justice has been requested to constitute a Larger Bench.”

2. As there are a number of appeals, we would not go into and advert to the facts of each case to avoid prolixity. We would confine ourselves to the legal issue and answer the Reference made.

3. During the hearing, question whether the limitation period specified in Article 116 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter, referred to as 'Limitation Act', for convenience) would apply to appeals preferred before the High Court under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Land Acquisition Act', for convenience) was raised. To appreciate this question we would reproduce Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act and Article 116 to the Schedule of the Limitation Act which read as under :-

“54. Appeals in proceedings before Court.- Subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, applicable to appeals from original decrees, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any enactment for the time being in force, an appeal shall only lie in any proceedings under this Act to the High Court from the award, or from any part of the award of the Court and from any decree of the High Court passed o