Condonation of delay requires a clear, bona fide explanation; vague administrative delay could not save the State's appeals.

Inordinate delay in filing appeals against land acquisition compensation awards was not condoned because the State failed to show sufficient cause. The Bombay HC held that administrative movement of files and government approvals, without a concrete account of the steps taken during the periods of inactivity, was too vague to justify more than two years' delay. Even with a pragmatic approach in favour of the State, condonation remains discretionary and requires a reasonable, bona fide explanation. The Court also noted that limitation gives the opposite party an accrued advantage, which should not be displaced without adequate justification, and the appeals were dismissed as time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the State had shown sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of more than two years in filing the appeals arising out of land acquisition compensation awards.

Analysis: The delay was found to be long and seriously unexplained for substantial periods. The explanation of administrative movement of files and governmental approvals was held insufficient where the applications gave no concrete account of the steps taken during the crucial intervals of inaction. The governing principle applied was that condonation of delay is discretionary and, even while adopting a pragmatic approach in favour of the State, the applicant must still disclose a reasonable and bona fide cause. The Court also noted that lapse of limitation creates a vested advantage for the claimants and that reopening the matter without adequate explanation would prejudice their accrued rights.

Conclusion: The State failed to establish sufficient cause, so the delay was not condoned and the appeals were dismissed as time-barred.

Ratio Decidendi: Inordinate delay can be condoned only on a clear and reasonable showing of sufficient cause, and vague references to administrative process or official delay are not enough to displace the accrued right of the opposite party under the law of limitation.

---