S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a group of nine Civil Applications filed for condonation of delay of 61 days under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, occurred in filing of the appeals against the common judgment and award dated 12th december, 1996 passed by the Court of learned 3rd Extra Assistant Judge, Mahesana in Land Acquisition Case No. 1419 of 1991 and cognate matters. ( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant produced a statement showing the additional compensation allowed by the Civil Court with solatium. From this statement, it is clearly borne out that except in the Appeal Nos. 3408 of 1997, 3414 of 1997 and 3415 of 1997 in rest of the appeal the amount involved is petty and small. Taking into consideration the smallness of the amount of difference between the assessment of market value made by the Land Acquisition Officer under Sec. 11 and the awards made on reference by the Civil Court under Sec. 26 of the Act, i. e. , less than Rs. 15,000. 00 these appeals are squarely covered by the decision of this Court given in Civil Application No. 7876 of 1997 and cognate matters decided on 10-9-1997. In this case, the Division Bench of this Court relying on the earlier decision of this Court in First Appeal No. 4877 of 1996 and allied matters decided on 8-9-1997 and decision of the Himachal Pradesh High court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Amar Singh, reported in AIR 1983 HP 70 held as under :"in this group of seven Civil Applications for condonation of delay of 210 days under sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for filing appeals against the common judgment and awards under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, common questions are involved as we have incidentally seen and gone into the merits of each award at the stage of admission with the help of the record and copies supplied by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, mr. Mukesh Patel. After having dispassionately seen the record and hearing learned a. G. P. , Mr. Mukesh Patel. After having dispassionately seen the record and hearing learned a. G. P. , Mr. Patel and considering the petty and smallness of amount of difference between the assessment of market value made by the Land Acquisition Officer under Sec. 11 and the awards made on reference by the District Court under Sec. 26 of the Act, we deem it expedient and appropriate not to interfere with the seven applications wherein delay is sought to be condoned in filing 7 appeals against the amount in each matter, less than rs. 15,000/-, following our recent decision in First Appeal No. 4877 of 1996 and allied matters, recorded on 8-9-1997, and the ratio propounded in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Amar Singh, AIR 1983 HP 70 . 2. No useful purpose will be served even by condoning delay as prayed for in each of the applications as the amount involved, in each of this group of 7 intended appeals, is quite small, insignificant and petty. Even if we were to condone the delay as prayed for after issuance of the notice, the result would have been the same in respect of appeals. The issuance of notice, however, even in this group of Civil Applications for condonation of delay, in all probabilities taking the realistic view in the matter, opponents -original claimants will be put to spend in order to defend even the Civil applications which may be highly disproportionate to the amount involved in the group of appeals. It is in this set of circumstances and bearing in mind the aforesaid proposition of law, we are of the clear opinion that the Civil Applications, for condonation of delay, deserve to be rejected at the inception upon cursory and prima facie examination of the merits of the appeals and the involvement of the amount, which is obviously petty and insignificant. 3. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the observations, this group of seven Civil Applications shall stand rejected. " ( 3 ) IN view of the ratio of the decision of this Court aforesaid, no useful purpose would be served even by condoning delay as prayed for in each of the Civil applications other than the three appeals aforesaid. ( 4 ) NOW, so far as the three Civil Applications are concerned where the valuation of the appeal is more than Rs. 15,000. ( 4 ) NOW, so far as the three Civil Applications are concerned where the valuation of the appeal is more than Rs. 15,000. 00, I find that in First Appeal No. 3408 of 1997, the amount exceeds by Rs. 280. 00. In First Appeal No. 3414 of 1997, this amount exceeds by only Rs. 40. 00. However, in the First Appeal No. 3415 of 1997, this amounts exceeds by Rs. 1,320. 00. At this juncture, I consider it to be appropriate to go on the merits of the matter. ( 5 ) THE lands of the claimants were acquired by the State Government for the purpose of Dharoi Canal Project. The lands are situated in the sim of Village molipur, Taluka Kheralu, District Mahesana. The notification under Sec. 4 of the land Acquisition Act was published on 2-9-1989 and notification under Sec. 6 was published on 8-8-1990. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded the compensation in favour of the claimants at the rate of Rs. 2. 60 ps. per sq. mt. vide award dated 28th January, 1991. Dissatisfied with that award, on the request of the claimants, reference has been made under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition act, 1894 to the Civil Court. Under the award dated 12-12-1996, additional compensation has been awarded at the rate of Rs. 7. 40 ps. per sq. mt. . Learned civil Court relying on its earlier decision in the matter of awarding of the compensation for land acquisition, i. e. , Ex. 22, enhanced the amount of compensation. Ex. 22 pertains to the acquisition of land of village Vadnagar, taluka Kheralu which has also been acquired by the State Government for this very project. Under that judgment, the amount of compensation has been awarded at the rate of Rs. 10. 00 per sq. mt. Learned Reference Court has considered that there is common simada of village Vadnagar and village Molipur. It has further been found that the lands of these villages are of equal fertility. So taking it to be a case of the acquisition of neighouring lands, the judgment Ex. 22 given earlier by the Civil Court has been taken to be relevant and considering the same, the additional compensation has been awarded in the present case. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant tried to distinguish the judgment Ex. So taking it to be a case of the acquisition of neighouring lands, the judgment Ex. 22 given earlier by the Civil Court has been taken to be relevant and considering the same, the additional compensation has been awarded in the present case. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant tried to distinguish the judgment Ex. 22 on which reliance has been placed by the Reference Court on the ground that the lands, subject-matter of these appeals, are not equal in fertility and situated at a vast distance. However, the appellants have not produced any cogent and convincing evidence before the Reference Court and in the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence coming from the side of the appellant, the Reference Court has not committed any error to award Rs. 10. 00 per sq. mt. compensation to the claimants for the acquisition of their lands. Otherwise also, looking to the situation of the lands as well as the date of notification of Sec. 4 coupled with the fact of devaluation of the value of rupee, high rising of prices of essential commodities, the compensation awarded at the rate of Rs. 10. 00 per sq. mt. cannot be said to be towards the excessive side. Even in the year 1989, it would have been difficult to have the land in village Molipur at the rate of Rs. 10. 00 per sq. mt. This is the amount by which a citizen could have hardly purchased three to four kgs. of wheat flour in the year 1989. ( 7 ) TAKING into consideration the totality of the facts of this case, the amount as awarded by the Reference Court in the present case on merits also cannot be considered to be towards the higher side. The Reference Court has awarded just and reasonable amount of compensation and these appeals themselves have no merits. In view of this fact even in these three appeals where the valuation is more than rs. 15,000/-, no useful purpose would be served on condoning the delay as ultimately on merits, the appeals have to be dismissed. Issuance of notices of these Civil applications in these three matters will cost the claimants disproportionately and for this meagre amount they have to incur heavy expenses. 15,000/-, no useful purpose would be served on condoning the delay as ultimately on merits, the appeals have to be dismissed. Issuance of notices of these Civil applications in these three matters will cost the claimants disproportionately and for this meagre amount they have to incur heavy expenses. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts of this case, in all these Civil Applications, no useful purpose would be served in case the delay in filing of the appeals are condoned. ( 8 ) IN the result, all these Civil Applications fail and the same are dismissed. .