JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. The appeal preferred against the award dated 2nd June, 2015 passed by learned Additional District Judge- II, Shimla in Land Reference No. RBT-52-R/4 of 2013/16 is barred by two years and nine months, as per calculation made by the Registry. The only ground in this application raised for condonation of the same is that the file remain unattended with the Dealing Assistant during the period 19.07.2015 to 22.06.2017. Also that, after the executing Court issued the warrant and received by the Commissioner, Temple (Deputy Commissioner), Shimla, the decision was taken and conveyed on 6.1.2018 to challenge the award in this Court. Simultaneously, approval of the Finance Department to provide a sum of Rs.2,51,61,334/- was also sought on 8.1.2018. The said amount stands deposited in the executing Court (Additional District Judge- II, Shimla) on 17.1.2018 through draft No.986037. The Commissioner, Temple was thereafter requested on 22.2.2018 to file an application in this Court seeking condonation of delay. The Deputy Commissioner call for the comments from the department as to what are the grounds on which the delay can be sought to be condoned. The comments by the department were made available to the Commissioner on 1st May, 2018. The papers were returned to the department by the Commissioner on 5.5.2018. Consequently, department had taken up the matter with the office of learned Advocate General, State of Himachal Pradesh on 7.5.2018. The office of learned Advocate General directed the appellant department to obtain approval from the Law Department at the first instance. Consequently, the matter was taken with Law Department, which advised that the same could not be agitated further in the given facts and circumstances. When the matter again referred to the Law Department on 4.6.2018, it has reiterated the advice given earlier. The matter when taken up with learned Advocate General on 8.6.2018, the advice of the Law Department was reiterated by learned Advocate General also, however, simultaneously, opined that there may be no harm in filing the appeal without any guarantee of final outcome. The matter thereafter was taken up with the Hon’ble Chief Minister who directed on 12.06.2018, the then Chief Secretary to examine the matter and it is the Chief Secretary who ultimately taken the decision on 22.06.2018 to file an appeal against the award in this Court. 2. The matter thereafter was taken up with the Hon’ble Chief Minister who directed on 12.06.2018, the then Chief Secretary to examine the matter and it is the Chief Secretary who ultimately taken the decision on 22.06.2018 to file an appeal against the award in this Court. 2. The application has been resisted and contested on the several grounds, however, mainly that the decision to file appeal has been taken contrary to the advice of not only the District Attorney, Law Department and also the learned Advocate General, State of Himachal Pradesh. Also that, no sufficient cause is disclosed from the application warranting the condonation of an inordinate delay nearing three years. The application, as such, has been sought to be dismissed. 3. Before coming to the given facts and circumstances and also the rival submissions, it is desirable to take note that the party seeking condonation of delay must show sufficient cause and the Court seized of the matter to construe the expression sufficient cause liberally i.e. if the party seeking condonation of delay is able to show with the help of plausible and reasonable explanation leading to cause delay, the same should be condoned. At the same time, it is also well established at this stage that law of limitation may be harsh to a party, however, it should be applied with all rigor and the Court have no power to condone the delay in case sufficient cause is not found to have been shown. 4. Before adverting to the given facts and circumstances, it is deemed appropriate to make reference to the legal principles laid down in various judicial pronouncements. The Apex Court in Maniben Devraj Shah V. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, (2012) 5 SCC, 157 has held that though a liberal and justice oriented approach is required to be adopted while considering an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, however, expression ‘sufficient cause’ would largely depend upon the bonafide nature of the explanation. Relevant portion of this judgment reads as follows: “23. Relevant portion of this judgment reads as follows: “23. What needs to be emphasized is that even though a liberal and justice oriented approach is required to be adopted in the exercise of power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and other similar statutes, the Courts can neither become oblivious of the fact that the successful litigant has acquired certain rights on the basis of the judgment under challenge and a lot of time is consumed at various stages of litigation apart from the cost. 24. What colour the expression sufficient cause would get in the factual matrix of a given case would largely depend on bona fide nature of the explanation. If the Court finds that there has been no negligence on the part of the applicant and the cause shown for the delay does not lack bona fides, then it may condone the delay. If, on the other hand, the explanation given by the applicant is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay.” 5. The apex Court in a recent judgment in Esha Bhattacharjee versus Managing Committee of Reghunathpur Nafar Academy & Others, (2013) 12 SCC 649 , while discussing the entire law, has laid down the following principles to be taken into consideration at the time of consideration of an application of this nature:- “21.1. There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice oriented, non- pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. 21.2. The terms “sufficient cause” should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact- situation. 21.3. Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. 21.4. No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. 21.5. Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. 21.6. 21.4. No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. 21.5. Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. 21.6. It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice. 21.7. The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. 21.8. There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. 21.9. The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. 21.10. If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation. 21.11. It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation. 21.12. The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. 21.13. The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude. 22. To the aforesaid principles we may add some more guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. They are:- 22.1. 21.13. The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude. 22. To the aforesaid principles we may add some more guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. They are:- 22.1. An application for condonation of delay should be drafted with careful concern and not in a half hazard manner harbouring the notion that the courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system. 22.2. An application for condonation of delay should not be dealt with in a routine manner on the base of individual philosophy which is basically subjective. 22.3. Though no precise formula can be laid down regard being had to the concept of judicial discretion, yet a conscious effort for achieving consistency and collegiality of the adjudicatory system should be made as that is the ultimate institutional motto. 22.4. The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non- serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a nonchalant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters.” 6. In Balakrishnan versus M. Krishanmurthy, (1998) 7 SCC, 123, the apex Court has held that in a case of delay there is always lapse on the part of the party seeking condonation thereof and the prayer for condonation of delay should not be disallowed only on the basis of such lapse and rather in case the explanation as set forth is not mala fide or the part of the dilatory strategy, the delay should be condoned. 7. The apex Court in P.K. Ramachandran versus State of Kerala and Others, AIR 1998, Supreme Court, 2276, has held that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party, but it has to be applied with all rigour when the statute so prescribe and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The High Court of Rajasthan has also held in Union of India versus Brij Lal Prabhu Dayal and Others, AIR 1999 Rajasthan, 216, that a party seeking condonation of delay must place before Court facts constituting ‘sufficient cause’, failing which the delay cannot be condoned. 8. In the context of expression ‘sufficient cause’, the apex Court has held in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another versus Mst. 8. In the context of expression ‘sufficient cause’, the apex Court has held in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another versus Mst. Katili and Others, AIR 1987 SC, 1353 that expression ‘sufficient cause’ is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaning full manner, which sub-serves the ends of justice. 9. Now, if coming to the merits, the present is a fit case where allowing the application would certainly amount to take away a valuable right accrued in favour of respondents-claimants on the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal against the award under challenge. Interestingly enough, the District Attorney concerned has applied for certified copy of award on the 2nd day i.e. 3rd June, 2015. The same was delivered to the office of the District Attorney on 4.7.2015. The same was forwarded to the department concerned by the office of District Attorney, Shimla through letter dated 19.7.2015 with the opinion that it was not a fit case for filing appeal in this Court. There is no denial to the record received with such opinion from the office of District Attorney. The matter remained pending in the department for a period over two years as the decision was taken on 6.1.2018 to assail the award in this Court i.e. when the Commissioner (Temple-cum- Deputy Commissioner, Shimla) has received the warrant from the executing Court. After the decision so taken, the Commissioner (Temple-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Shimla) was asked to file the application for condonation of delay in this Court on 22.2.2018. The Deputy Commissioner, however, called for the comments from the department so that the grounds on which delay so occurred was sought to be condoned. The comments, most probably, were not made available to the Deputy Commissioner as nothing to this effect is on record, however, the said authority vide letter dated 5.5.2018 returned all the papers to the department to take a decision at Government level for filing an appeal. It is thereafter the matter was taken up with the office of learned Advocate General who advised not to agitate the award any further by filing appeal. When the matter taken up with it on 8.5.2018, the Law Department even reiterated its opinion when the matter referred again to it on 4.6.2018. It is thereafter the matter was taken up with the office of learned Advocate General who advised not to agitate the award any further by filing appeal. When the matter taken up with it on 8.5.2018, the Law Department even reiterated its opinion when the matter referred again to it on 4.6.2018. Learned Advocate General has also concurred with the opinion of the Law Department, however, leaving it open to the department to file an appeal without giving any assurance qua its success. Not only this but the matter ultimately was placed before the Hon’ble Chief Minister on 12.06.2018, who directed the Chief Secretary to examine the same. The Chief Secretary ultimately had taken a decision on 22.06.2018 to file the appeal. 10. Keeping in view, the sequence of events as explained hereinabove, perhaps there was no intention to challenge the impugned award any further by way of filing appeal in this Court in view of the opinion of the District Attorney. No plausible explanation is forthcoming as to why the file remain unattended from 19.7.2015 to 22.06.2017. The only explanation that the same remained pending with the concerned Dealing Assistant cannot be a ground allowed to be raised to take away the rights accrued in favour of the respondents-claimants on the expiry of period prescribed for filing an appeal. The appellant department may have initiated the departmental proceedings against the Dealing Hand, however, the same is of no help to this case. It is on the receipt of notice from the executing Court on 22.06.2017, the appellant department woke up from long slumber. Even thereafter also, no decision to file the appeal was taken immediately and the matter was rather delayed approximately by six months because the decision to this effect was taken on 6.1.2018 when the Commissioner (Temple-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Shimla) received the warrant from the executing Court. Even thereafter also, prompt decision was not taken by the authorities and to the contrary the filing of present application along with the memorandum of appeal has been delayed till 30.06.2018. Not only this but the decision to file appeal has been taken contrary to the advice of the District Attorney and also the Law Department to the Government of Himachal Pradesh as well as learned Advocate General, State of Himachal Pradesh. Not only this but the decision to file appeal has been taken contrary to the advice of the District Attorney and also the Law Department to the Government of Himachal Pradesh as well as learned Advocate General, State of Himachal Pradesh. The applicants/appellants, as such, has miserably failed to show sufficient cause warranting the condonation of an inordinate delay of two years and nine months. 11. Now, if coming to the merits of the case, the impugned award has been challenged on the ground that there is manifold increase by learned Reference Court below while determining the market value of the acquired land. The perusal of record available at this stage, prima-facie, reveals that the Court below has taken into consideration the market value of different categories of land in the area and by way of averaging the same arrived at a datum figure i.e. Rs.3151/- per centiare against Rs.1627/- which was assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector. As per settled legal principles, the land acquired for the public purpose like raising construction of building or roads and for that matter the beautification of Mata Hateshwari Temple, the market value of the acquired land should have not been assessed on the basis of its classification and rather at flat rates, irrespective of its nature and classification. The Court below, in the case in hand, to the contrary has taken into consideration the market value of all categories of land and averaged the same. Such an approach in the matter, as such, is fair enough. Therefore, on merits also, perhaps no case is made out in favour of the appellants-beneficiary. 12. Otherwise also, as noticed supra, the law of limitation may be harsh to a party, however, has to be applied with all rigor. In these circumstances, the delay as occurred cannot be condoned, however, in case it appear to the Government that public exchequer is unnecessarily burdened on account of payment of enhanced amount of compensation, it is left open to recover the same from the Officers who had to take a decision and erring officials to make the loss caused to the public exchequer. 13. For all the reasons discussed hereinabove, there is no merit in this application and the same is accordingly dismissed with Rs.10,000/- as costs to be recoverable from the erring officers/officials. Consequently, the appeal, which is time barred is also dismissed. 13. For all the reasons discussed hereinabove, there is no merit in this application and the same is accordingly dismissed with Rs.10,000/- as costs to be recoverable from the erring officers/officials. Consequently, the appeal, which is time barred is also dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.