Limitation and land acquisition compensation provisions did not justify condoning long, unexplained delay in special leave petitions.

Special leave petitions filed after long, unexplained delay were not entertained because no sufficient cause was shown under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The petitioners had already pursued reference proceedings, obtained enhanced compensation, and allowed the award to attain finality. The amended compensation provisions in the land acquisition law were held inapplicable, as they were confined to persons covered by Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and did not extend to claimants who had sought reference under Section 18. The earlier observation against technical reliance on limitation by public authorities was treated as a general remark, not a universal bar to a limitation plea.

---

---

Issues: Whether special leave petitions filed after inordinate delay could be entertained and the delay condoned on the strength of the amended compensation provisions in the land acquisition law.

Analysis: The petitions were filed after long and unexplained delays, and no sufficient cause was shown within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The petitioners had already pursued reference proceedings and obtained enhanced compensation, and the award had attained finality. The amended provisions relating to re-determination of compensation were held to be inapplicable because they were confined to the class of persons contemplated by Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, namely those who had not sought reference under Section 18 of that Act. The observation in the cited earlier decision against technical reliance on limitation by public authorities was treated as a general remark and not as a universal rule barring a plea of limitation.

Conclusion: The delay was not liable to be condoned and special leave was not warranted.

---