- (1.) N. N. Mithal, J. These four appeals have been filed by the State of U. P. u/ S. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act read with S. 96, C. P. C.
(2.) ALL these appeals are against a common judgment of the court below by which four references u/ S. 18, Land Acquisition Act, which had been consolidated, were disposed of raising the compensation for the acquired land to Rs. 30/- per sq. yard. The appeals were filed beyond the period of limitation along with requisite application u/s. 5 Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. All these appeals are beyond time by more than 240 days. These are not the solitary cases where an appeal by the State Government has been filed with such long delay. In fact, if the experience we have had in this regard lately is any index, it would be an exception if an appeal is filed by the State within limitation for, as a rule, most of the appeals are accompanied by applications u/ S. 5. So is the case with many of the public or local bodies. The affidavits that have been filed to support the delay condonation application merely recount a series of facts as to what lead to the delay due to time spent at various stages by the agencies involved and their multi-level authorities in an attempt to explain this delay. The respondent vehemently opposes on the ground that the affidavits fail to disclose any cause for delay and whatever is recited as cause of delay was neither justified nor properly supported by relevant documentary evidence.
(3.) MERITS of the case later. First we will try to examine as to on what considerations should the court decide an application u/ S. 5 Limitation Act. The law had been quite severe and stringent some time ago and the established view was that the delay must be explained day by day. The view taken by this Court in AIR 1976 ALLAHABAD 159 was that not only should the applicant show sufficient cause for the delay but must also explain the whole period of delay, day by day. In 1981 All LJ 176 the same view was reiterated that each day's delay must be explained. There has been another line of decisions whereunder the words 'sufficient cause' were to receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. (See AIR 1982 All 240 ).;