JUDGMENT The appellant Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project, Almatti, being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 17th February, 2006 passed on I.A. No. I in LAC Appeal No. 24 of2004 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Bijapur, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and award dated 4th January, 2003 passed 'In LAC No. 460 of 1997 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bijapur, has presented the instant miscellaneous second appeal. 2. Land bearing R.S. No. 131 measuring 1 acre 15 guntas, situated at Hunashyal Village, Basavana Bagewadi Taluk, belonging to the respondents herein, along with other several lands have been notified and acquired by the State through the appellant herein for the purpose of construction of link road connecting all centers, vide preliminary notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on 22-9-1983 and published in the Karnataka Gazette on the same date. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, after taking all the relevant factors into consideration, has passed the award on 30-10-1984. Not being satisfied with the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, claimants/respondents herein have filed reference application before the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, and requested to refer the matter to the jurisdictional Reference Court, for enhancement of compensation, on the ground that, the amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate. The Reference Court, in turn, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence and other relevant materials available on file, by adopting capitalisation method, taking into consideration potentiality of the land, the nature of the crops grown therein and with reference to the Ex. P. 2-price list, has determined and fixed the market value of the land in question at Rs. 15,000/- per acre, after assigning cogent reasons in paragraph 10 by its judgment dated 4th January, 2003 in LAC No. 460 of 1997. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, the appellant-Special Land Acquisition Officer, herein has filed an appeal before the IV Additional District Judge, Bijapur, in LAC Appeal No. 24 of 2004, on the ground that the amount awarded by the Reference Court is excessive. Along with the said appeal, the appellant had filed I.A. No. I for condonation of delay of 650 days in preferring the said appeal. Along with the said appeal, the appellant had filed I.A. No. I for condonation of delay of 650 days in preferring the said appeal. The Lower Appellate Court, after hearing both sides, has rejected the said application and consequently dismissed the appeal. Assailing the correctness of the judgment and award passed by both the Courts below, appellant felt necessitated to present the instant miscellaneous second appeal. 3. I have heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for appellant. 4. After careful perusal of the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court and the order passed by the Lower Appellate Court, I do not find any error or illegality as such committed by both the Courts below. Nor the appellant has made out any good grounds to entertain this appeal. It is pertinent to note that, the Reference Court by adopting capitalisation method taking into consideration the potentiality of the soil, nature of the crops grown therein and in view of the evidence of P.W. 1 that they are getting the income of more than Rs. 30,000/- per acre as they are raising crops like ground nut, sunflower, jowar etc., and nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination and also placing reliance on Ex. P. 2-price list issued by the Secretary of the APMC, Bijapur stating that, then the price of ground nut is Rs. 400/- per quintal, jawar is at Rs. 160/- per quintal, cotton is at Rs. 450/- to 500/- and after taking the average price and after giving necessary deductions, has determined and fixed the market value at Rs. 15,000/- per acre, by assigning cogent reasons in paragraphs 9 and 10 of its judgment. The said determination made by the Reference Court is just and reasonable. Nor I find any error or illegality in the same and interference by this Court is not justifiable. Against the said judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, appellant herein has preferred an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court in LAC Appeal No. 24 of 2004. Along with the said appeal, he has filed I.A. No. I for condonation of delay of650 days in filing the said appeal. The said application had come up for consideration before the Lower Appellate Court on 17th February, 2006. Along with the said appeal, he has filed I.A. No. I for condonation of delay of650 days in filing the said appeal. The said application had come up for consideration before the Lower Appellate Court on 17th February, 2006. The Lower Appellate Court, placing reliance on the judgments of this Court in State of Karnataka by Special Land Acquisition Officer, K.R.P., Mysore v Marimalledevaru1 and Director, Karnataka Government Insurance Department, Bangalore v Ganga and Others2, wherein the delay in filing was 152 days and 174 days respectively, as referred in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the order and after assigning cogent reasons in paragraph 12 of its order stating that, in the matter of State Government looking to the multifarious activities of the State, some lenient view should be taken but this does not mean that everything should be taken as for granted even if there is no satisfactory explanation and over sympathetic approach in the matter of condonation of delay resulting in over liberal situation may amount to doing injustice to the opposite party as by lapse of time a right could have been accrued to the opposite parties which cannot be defeated which aspect will also have to be borne in mind in such matters as laid down by this Court in ILR 1995 Kar. 324 (sic) and following the well-settled principles of law laid down by this Court and Apex Court in hosts of judgment and after assigning cogent reasons, has dismissed the said I.A. and consequently dismissed the appeal. Therefore, I do not find any justification to entertain the instant appeal at this stage i.e., after the lapse of more than two decades, as the acquisition was initiated in the year 1983 and now we are in the year 2006. Nor the appellant has made out any good grounds to interfere in the judgment and award passed by both the Courts below. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed as devoid of merits.