ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. Feeling aggrieved by order dated 5.9.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the application filed by them under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of 1110 days' delay, the appellants have moved this Court. 3. The appellants land situated in Village Wazirabad, Tehsil and District Gurgaon was part of large chunk of land measuring 193.1 acres acquired by the Government of Haryana vide notification dated 15.5.1997 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), which was followed by declaration dated 4.5.1998 issued under Section 6(1) of the Act. The purpose of acquisition was development of Sector-52 for residential, commercial and institutional purpose in District Gurgaon. 4. The Land Acquisition Collector passed award dated 3.5.2000 whereby he fixed market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 12,00,000 per acre for Chahi, Rs. 9,60,000/- per acre Allabarani, Rs. 8,40,000/- per acre Bhood land and Rs. 7,20,090/- per acre for Banjar land. 5. Feeling dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, the appellants filed application under Section 18 of the Act for determination of the amount of compensation by the Court. Additional District Judge, Gurgaon to whom the reference was entrusted considered the evidence produced by the parties and held that the appellants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 717 per sq. yard with other statutory benefits. 6. A number of landowners filed appeals under Section 54 of the Act, which were disposed of by the learned Single Judge of the High Court vide judgment dated 1.10.2010 with the title case - Sudama and others v. State of Haryana, RFA No. 1824 of 2006 and enhanced the compensation from Rs. 717 per sq. yards to Rs. 1,216 per sq. yards. 7. After almost three years of the disposal of other appeals, the appellants filed RFA No.5477/2011. They also filed CM No.12357- CI/2011 for condonation of 1110 days' delay. 717 per sq. yards to Rs. 1,216 per sq. yards. 7. After almost three years of the disposal of other appeals, the appellants filed RFA No.5477/2011. They also filed CM No.12357- CI/2011 for condonation of 1110 days' delay. The learned Single Judge of the High Court did not feel satisfied with the cause shown by the appellants and dismissed the application for condonation of delay by assigning the following reasons : "Thus, a perusal of the averments made in this application would show that the appellants had given their brief to other claimants to file an appeal before this Court and they came to know from the judgment of this Court that the other claimants have not filed an appeal on their behalf and in view of the aforesaid fact, the delay of 1110 days has been caused in filing this appeal. The explanation given by the appellants is not believable. So much so, the appellants have not mentioned the names of the other claimants to whom they have entrusted their appeals for filing before this Court. Even otherwise, it is not believable that a villager whose land has been acquired will not enquire about his case from a co-villager through whom the said appeal was filed, allegedly, for such a long period. The averments made in this application shows that the appellants had been negligent and casual in their approach to file the appeal and they have woken up only when this Court had enhanced the compensation in other appeals. Thus, the explanation given is not accepted. No sufficient cause to condone the extra ordinary delay has been shown, therefore, prayer for condoning the delay in filing this appeal is rejected." 8. As a sequel to dismissal of the application for condonation of delay, the appeal filed under Section 54 was dismissed as barred by time. 9. Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants argued that the impugned order is liable to be set aside because the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge in dealing with the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was hyper-technical and he ignored the fact that in identical matters another learned Single Judge had allowed the appeals filed under Section 54 of the Act and granted substantial enhancement in the amount of compensation determined by the Reference Court. 10. 10. Shri Narender Hooda, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, Haryana argued that the learned Single Judge did not commit any error by dismissing the application for condonation of delay because the explanation given by the appellants was wholly unsatisfactory. He pointed out that the appellants had not disclosed the name of the claimants to whom they had entrusted their appeals for being filed in the Court and argued that the explanation given by the appellants was rightly discarded by the learned Single Judge. 11. We have considered the respective arguments/submissions and carefully scrutinized the record. 12. While we agree with Shri Narender Hooda that the averments contained in the application for condonation of delay were extremely vague and did not provide satisfactory explanation for the long delay of 1110 days, but it cannot be ignored that in identical matters another learned Single Judge had granted relief to the landowners by enhancing the compensation and this factor should not have been overlooked by the learned Single Judge while deciding the application for condonation of delay. 13. We can take judicial notice of the fact that villagers in our country are by and large illiterate and are not conversant with the intricacies of law. They are usually guided by their co- villagers, who are familiar with the proceedings in the Courts or the advocates with whom they get in touch for redressal of their grievance. Affidavits filed in support of the applications for condonation of delay are usually drafted by the advocates on the basis of half baked information made available by the affected persons. Therefore, in the acquisition matters involving claim for award of just compensation, the Court should adopt a liberal approach and either grant time to the party to file better affidavit to explain delay or suo motu take cognizance of the fact that large number of other similarly situated persons who were affected by the determination of compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer or the Reference Court have been granted relief. 14. In Civil Appeal Nos. 14. In Civil Appeal Nos. 5335-5336 of 2013 titled Samiyathal and others v. Special Tahsildar and others decided on 5.7.2013, this Court took cognizance of the fact that many landowners may not have been able to seek intervention of this Court for grant of enhanced compensation due to illiteracy, poverty and ignorance and issued direction that those who have not filed special leave petition should be given enhanced compensation. The relevant portion of the judgment passed in that case is extracted below : "We further direct the respondents and the State of Tamil Nadu to pay the same amount of compensation to other landowners whose land was acquired by notification dated 22.05.1991, but who may have on account of ignorance, poverty and other similar handicaps, not been able to approach the Reference Court or may not have been able to contest the matter before the High Court and this Court. The needful be done in respect of other landowners within a period of six months. This direction has been given in exercise of the power vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution." 15. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the delay in filing RFA No.5477/2011 by the appellants is condoned. 16. At this stage, Shri Narender Hooda very fairly stated that instead of remanding the case to the High Court for consideration of the appeal filed by the appellants under Section 54 of the Act, the Court may grant relief to them in terms of judgment dated 1.10.2010 passed in R.F.A. No. 1824 of 2006, Sudama and others v. State of Haryana and another and connected matters but this order may be confined to the present case. 17. We appreciate the statement made by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General and hold that the appellants shall be entitled to enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 1216 per sq. yard with other statutory benefits. However, it is made clear that the appellants shall not be entitled to interest for the period of delay, i.e., 1110 days. 18. The respondents shall pay the amount of enhanced compensation and other statutory benefits to the appellants within a period of six months from today.