Judgment Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. 1. C.M. No. 1389-CI of 2008. This is an application for condonation of delay of 5261 days in filing the appeal. In this case, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , (for short, `the Act) was issued on 2.11.1987 followed by a notification of declaration under Section 6 of the Act, dated 21.11.1987 vide which land of the appellant was acquired in Village Chalheri, District Patiala, for the public purpose, namely for the construction of SYL Power House at Rajpura. As many as 19 land references were referred by the Collector under Section 18 of the Act to the District Judge, Patiala against the award of the Collector dated 15.12.1988. The appellant also filed Land Reference No.24-T/91/11.08.1989 which was decided together in the bunch of cases by the Addl. District Judge, Patiala vide order dated 26.2.1993 after enhancing the compensation marginally. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant contends that the applicant/appellant could not file the appeal in time against the order dated 26.2.1993 as he was advised that he should not file any appeal because he would also be entitled to the same amount of compensation as that would be awarded to the other co-villagers. 3. It is also contended that the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant that 16 Regular First Appeals filed against the award dated 26.2.1993 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Patiala, have already been allowed by Honble Mr. Justice H.S. Bhalla vide his order dated 30.8.2006. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant further submits that in the case of Rattan Lal v. State of Haryana, 1999(3) SCT 22 : (1998-1)118 PLR 283 : 1997(2) PLJ 259, this Court has held that mistaken advise of getting the benefit of the judgment rendered in appeals filed by other claimants falls within the terms Section 5 of the Limitation Act. She also relies upon an order dated 8.7.2008 passed in C.M. Nos. 5832-CI of 2007 and 5589-CI of 2008 in/and RFA No. 2622 of 2007, wherein there was a delay of 5110 days in filing of the appeal which has been condoned on payment of Rs. 5,000/- as costs to be deposited with High Court Lawyers Public Charitable Trust. 5. She also relies upon an order dated 8.7.2008 passed in C.M. Nos. 5832-CI of 2007 and 5589-CI of 2008 in/and RFA No. 2622 of 2007, wherein there was a delay of 5110 days in filing of the appeal which has been condoned on payment of Rs. 5,000/- as costs to be deposited with High Court Lawyers Public Charitable Trust. 5. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the applicant/appellant has not disclosed in the application as to who had advised him for not filing the appeal in time. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the cause shown in the application by the applicant falls within the definition of "Sufficient Cause" under Section 5 of the Act in view of the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Rattan Lal case (supra) as well as in the case of decision dated 8.7.2008 passed in CM Nos. 5832-CI of 2008 in and 5589-CI of 2007 in RFA No. 2622 of 2007. 7. For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is hereby allowed and delay of 5261 days in filing the appeal is condoned on payment of Rs. 5,000/- as costs to be deposited with High Court Lawyers Public Charitable Trust, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. CM NO. 1392- Cl of 2008. On request, adjourned to 8.5.2009.