R.K. Manisana, J - The Union of India has filed this appeal under section 11 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (for short `Act') from a common Award made by the Arbitrator/under section 8 of the Act along with an' application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents have raised a question that the Union of India cannot prefer the appeal as it was not a party in the arbitration proceedings. The question which, therefore, arises for consideration is whether the Union of India can file an appeal under section 11 of the Act. Section 11 of the Act runs as follows : "Any person aggrieved by an award of the arbitrator made under section 8 may, within thirty days from the date of such award, prefer an appeal to the High Court within whose jurisdiction the requisitioned or acquired property is situate : Provided that the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time." (emphasis added) Section 11 lays down who can file an appeal, that is to say, - " a person aggrieved" may prefer an appeal. 3. The question then is, - What is the meaning of the words “a person aggrieved " ? In Corpus Juris Secnndum, Volume-IV, page-183, it is stated :-" Broadly speaking, a party or person is aggrieved by a decision when, and only when, it operates directly and injuriously upon his personal, pecuniary, or property rights. " 4. In Bar Council of Maharashtra vs. M.V.Dabholkar, AIR 1975 SC 2092 , the Supreme Court has observed : "The meaning of the words "a person aggrieved" may vary according to the context of the statute. One of the meanings is that a person will be held to be aggrieved by a decision if that decision is materially adverse to him. Normally, one is required to establish that one has been denied or deprived of something to which one is legally entitled in order to make one "a person aggrieved". Again a person is aggrieved if a legal burden is imposed on him. Normally, one is required to establish that one has been denied or deprived of something to which one is legally entitled in order to make one "a person aggrieved". Again a person is aggrieved if a legal burden is imposed on him. The meaning of the words "a person aggrieved" is some­times given a restricted meaning in certain statutes which provide remedies for the protection of private legal rights", (emphasis added) 5. Keeping the above principles in view, let now examine the question whether the Union of India is a person aggrieved. The land was acquired for the purpose of the Union. The Union of India has to pay the compensation. In the Award, the compensation had been enhanced. Therefore, the Award operates directly or injuriously against the pecuniary interest of the Union and also is materially adverse to the Union of India, thereby imposing a legal burden on the Union of India. This being the situation, the Union of India is a person aggrieved. It is true that the Union of India was not a party to the arbitration proceedings. There is a difference between "a party aggrieved" and "a person aggrieved". In the case of "a party aggrieved", only a party to record can appeal under the statute providing that "any party aggrieved" may appeal. But section 11 provides that, as already stated, any person aggrieved may prefer appeal. Therefore, the Union of India can prefer appeal. 6. With regard to condonation of delay of 678 days for preferring the appeal, the appellant has explained that the Union of India was not a party in. the arbitration proceedings. However, the Defence Estates Officer (DEO) received a letter dated 8.1.91 of, the Land Acquisition Officer on 18.1.91 along with two uncertified copies of the Award. Thereafter, he sent the statement of facts to the Secretary Law Branch at Calcutta for opinion. The DEO received opinion on 2 4.91 from the Ministry of Law and Justice. Certified copy of the Award was received on 21.5.91. Learned counsel of the Union of India could get ready the Memo of Appeal on 24.5.91 and the same was filed on 25.5.91. The DEO himself had sworn the affidavit verifying the facts stated above. The DEO received opinion on 2 4.91 from the Ministry of Law and Justice. Certified copy of the Award was received on 21.5.91. Learned counsel of the Union of India could get ready the Memo of Appeal on 24.5.91 and the same was filed on 25.5.91. The DEO himself had sworn the affidavit verifying the facts stated above. Although, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that every day delay has not been explained, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Collector vs. Katiji, AIR 1987 SC 1353 . We approach the matter liberally, especially when the Union of India was not a party in the arbitration procee­dings. Considering the facts and the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that sufficient cause has been shown for not preferring the appeal in time Accordingly, the delay is condoned. The appeal shall be listed for admission.