ORDER : A.S. Chandurkar, J. 1. By this application, it is prayed that the delay in filing the appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 be condoned. In the application, it has been stated that the Reference Court passed its award on 1-11-1991. In the meanwhile the original claimant had expired and the applicants are his legal heirs. First Appeal No. 269/1998 was decided by this Court in which the claimants were held entitled for compensation @ Rs. 65,000/- per hectare. It is stated that as the applicants herein are similarly situated, they are entitled to receive the similar compensation. On getting knowledge of the aforesaid award, the applicants applied for certified copy on 24-10-2016 which was received on 11-11-2016. The appeal has been filed thereafter. 2. In support of the application, Shri R.J. Shinde, learned Counsel for the applicants by relying upon the decisions in Dhiraj Singh vs. Haryana State and Ors., 2014 (14) SCC 127 and Imrat Lal and others vs. Land Acquisition Collector and others, 2014 (9) SCALE 446 submitted that the delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned if necessary by putting the applicants to reasonable terms. Such terms could also include the applicants being deprived of the amount of interest on the compensation amount if enhanced. He further submitted that such approach would meet the ends of justice. He also referred to similar orders passed in various appeals under the said Act condoning delay therein subject to the claimants being deprived of interest. 3. Ms. M. Naik, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the non-applicants opposed the prayer as made. She referred to the reply filed on record and submitted that the reasons mentioned in the application were not sufficient to condone the long period of delay. No steps were taken by the original claimant during his life time to have the amount of compensation enhanced. After the land was acquired, the right of the claimant therein came to an end. His legal heirs therefore did not represent the estate of the deceased and they were not entitled to prosecute the present application. She referred to the decision in Andhra Bank vs. R. Srinivasan, AIR 1962 SC 232 in that regard. Reliance was also placed on the decision in Basawaraj & Anr. vs. Spl. His legal heirs therefore did not represent the estate of the deceased and they were not entitled to prosecute the present application. She referred to the decision in Andhra Bank vs. R. Srinivasan, AIR 1962 SC 232 in that regard. Reliance was also placed on the decision in Basawaraj & Anr. vs. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 2014 SC 746 as well as the decision in Ishwar Dutt vs. Land Acquisition Collector, AIR 2005 SC 3165 to submit that absence of sufficient cause would preclude the Court from condoning the delay. It was thus submitted that the application for condonation of delay was liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. The challenge in the appeal is to the judgment of the Reference Court whereby compensation was awarded to the claimants but not being satisfied with its quantum, the applicants seek enhancement therein. In Dhiraj Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that in matters of land acquisition where the land of peasants is acquired, a different approach has to be taken. Such persons should not be deprived of the amount of reasonable compensation for their lands. If other similarly situated land owners are given compensation at a particular rate, there is no reason to deprive similarly situated land owners of identical compensation. Reference was made to the earlier decision in Imrat Lal and others (supra), wherein judicial note of the fact was taken that villagers are by and large illiterate and not conversant with the intricacies of law. They are individually guided by co-villagers with whom they get in touch for redressal of their grievances. In acquisition matters involving the claim of just compensation, the Court should adopt a liberal approach. It was further observed that equities could be balanced by denying the claimants interest for the period for which they did not approach the Court. On the other hand in Basawaraj and another (supra) wherein the appeal filed by a land owner had been dismissed on the ground of limitation and that order was under challenge, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it was necessary for the applicant to explain as to what was the sufficient cause which prevented him from approaching the Court within limitation. In absence of any sufficient cause to prevent the claimant from approaching the Court on time, the delay could not be condoned without any justification. 6. In absence of any sufficient cause to prevent the claimant from approaching the Court on time, the delay could not be condoned without any justification. 6. It can be seen that the aforesaid decision in Basawaraj (supra) was rendered on 22-8-2013 while the decision in Imrat Lal and others (supra) was rendered on 29-11-2013 and the decision in Dhiraj Singh (supra) was rendered on 21-7-2014. Reference can also be made to yet another subsequent decision in K. Subbarayudu and others vs. Special Deputy Collector, (2017) 12 SCC 840 wherein it has been reiterated that in case of acquisition of lands, the Courts ought to adopt a pragmatic approach to award just and reasonable compensation. It was observed that when similarly situated agriculturists were given a higher rate of compensation, such benefit could not be denied to other agriculturists only on the ground of delay. Considering these latter decisions wherein it has been held that in the matters of compensation for land acquisition the approach of the Court has to be pragmatic and liberal on the aspect of condonation of delay, I am inclined to follow the said latter decisions. For the purposes of balancing the equities, the applicants can be denied interest for the period for which they did not approach the Court. Such course would enable the applicants to receive similar compensation as that received by adjoining land owners whose lands were acquired under the same notification and who were granted enhanced compensation. The State also would not be burdened by the amount of interest as no interest would be payable for the period of delay. 7. The contention that since the land of the claimant was acquired, the applicants could not be treated as legal representatives cannot be accepted. The right to seek reasonable compensation is not taken away by such compulsory acquisition and after the death of the claimant his legal representatives are entitled to seek reasonable compensation in accordance with law. In that view of the matter, the ratio of the decisions in R. Srinivasan and Ishwar Dutt (supra) cannot be made applicable to the case in hand. 8. Hence, for aforesaid reasons the delay in filing the appeal stands condoned. In that view of the matter, the ratio of the decisions in R. Srinivasan and Ishwar Dutt (supra) cannot be made applicable to the case in hand. 8. Hence, for aforesaid reasons the delay in filing the appeal stands condoned. However, the applicants would not be entitled for interest on the amount of compensation if enhanced from the date of the judgment of the Reference Court till filing of the first appeal along with the application for condonation of delay. The civil application is allowed in aforesaid terms.