JUDGMENT : Instant appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), lays challenge to award dated 5.6.2010, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., in Reference Petition No.139 of 2007, titled as Bhola Ram son of Daitu, since deceased, now through LRs versus Collector Land Acquisition and another, whereby Court below enhanced the amount of compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Collector. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that land of the appellant came to be acquired for the purpose of construction of NHPC, Parvati Hydro Electric Project, Larji, District Kullu, HP and for that purpose, Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued vide notification No.Vidyut Chh(5)19/2002, dated 22.3.2003. After completion of necessary codal formalities, Land Acquisition Collector vide award No.20, dated 6.1.2005 awarded the compensation amount. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Collector, appellant herein preferred reference petition under Section 18 of the Act in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, who vide award dated 5.6.2010 enhanced the amount awarded by Land Acquisition Collector. Since, award amount awarded by reference court in the cases of other similar situate persons came to be further enhanced by this Court in the Regular First Appeals having been filed by the claimants in those cases, appellant herein has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for enhancement of compensation amount. 4. During the proceedings of the case, learned counsel representing the appellant while inviting attention of this Court to the judgment dated 22nd October, 2016, passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in RFA No.282 of 2010 alongwith other connected matters, claimed that case at hand is squarely covered with the aforesaid judgment. 5. Vide order dated 4.10.2021, this Court directed respondent No.1 to verify aforesaid fact. Ms. Shreya Chauhan, learned counsel representing respondent No.1, while fairly admitting that the case at hand is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court, contends that since appellant herein has approached this Court after inordinate delay of 5 years 10 months, prayer made in the instant appeal for enhancement deserves to be rejected outrightly. 6. Shreya Chauhan, learned counsel representing respondent No.1, while fairly admitting that the case at hand is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court, contends that since appellant herein has approached this Court after inordinate delay of 5 years 10 months, prayer made in the instant appeal for enhancement deserves to be rejected outrightly. 6. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that vide order dated 1.12.2017 delay in filing the appeal at hand was condoned, but in the said order, it was specifically observed that in case the appeal is preferred beyond the period of limitation, equities can be balanced by denying the claimants interest for the period when they did not approach this Court. Since, it is not in dispute interse parties that similarly situate persons, whose land was also acquired for the purpose of construction of Parvati Hydro Electric Project, Larji, District Kullu, H.P., by same notification and vide same award No.20, dated 6.1.2005 have been given enhanced amount of compensation in terms of the judgment dated 22nd October, 2010 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, prayer made in the instant appeal also deserves to be considered and decided in the light of aforesaid judgment. However, having taken note of the fact that appellant herein has approached this Court after inordinate delay of five years 10 months, he cannot be held entitled to interest for the period of five years 10 months. 7. In similar facts and circumstances, this Court vide judgment dated 7.8.2019, passed in RFA No.248 of 2019, titled Shri Dine Ram versus The Collector Land Acquisition and another, has condoned the delay, but denied the interest qua the period of delay. At this stage, it would be profitable to reproduce paras No.2 to 7 of the aforesaid judgment here-in-below:- “2. Hon’ble Apex Court in Dhiraj Singh (Dead) through Legal Representatives and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others, (2014)14 SCC 127 , while dealing with the land acquisition matters, has categorically held that approach of the Court, while condoning the delay in filing the appeal, should be pragmatic and not pedantic. Court has further held that the equities can be balanced by denying the interest to the appellants for the period for which they did not approach the Court. Court has further held that the equities can be balanced by denying the interest to the appellants for the period for which they did not approach the Court. The substantive rights of the appellant should not be allowed to be defeated on technical grounds by taking hyper technical view of self-imposed limitation. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “16. The principles regarding condonation of delay particularly in land acquisition matters, have been enunciated in Collector (LA) v. Katiji, (1987)2 SCC 107 , wherein it is stated in para 3 as under: (SCC p.108) “(3). The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice--that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other Courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that:- 1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.” (emphasis in original) 17. The aforesaid judgment was followed by this Court in DDA vs. Bhola Nath Sharma, (2011)2 SCC 54 , which was also a matter concerning land acquisition. 18. We, accordingly, allow these appeals. Impugned orders of the High Court are set aside. Delay in filing the LPAs is condoned. It is held that the appellants shall be entitled to enhanced compensation @ Rs.200 per square yard. However, for the period of delay in approaching the High Court by way of LPAs, in all these cases, no interest should be paid to them. Compensation shall be worked out accordingly and paid to the appellants within a period of three months from today.” 3. In the aforesaid judgment Hon’ble Apex Court has reiterated that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 4. The aforesaid view has further been reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Subbaraydu and Others vs. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), (2017)12 SCC 840 . 5. In the case at hand, applicant-appellant has fairly stated that he was unable to file the appeal well within time on account of his old age, ill-health, forgetfulness, not aware of the legal intricacies and non-availability of funds for engaging counsel etc., but subsequently, factum with regard to enhancement of compensation to the similar situate persons came to his knowledge and, as such, he arranged money and filed appeal without any further delay. 6. In the case at hand, if delay is not condoned, great prejudice would be caused to the applicant. 6. In the case at hand, if delay is not condoned, great prejudice would be caused to the applicant. Applicant has certainly not gained anything by not filing the appeal within prescribed period of limitation, rather, in the event of dismissal of his appeal on the ground of delay, he would loose opportunity to get the compensation enhanced by approaching this Court in the appropriate proceedings, laying therein challenge to the award passed by the reference Court. 7. Consequently, in view of aforesaid law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as explanation rendered in the application, this Court is convinced and satisfied that delay in maintaining the accompanying appeal deserves to be condoned. This application is accordingly allowed. The delay of 2 years 9 months and 27 days in maintaining the appeal, which has sufficiently been explained, is condoned in the interest of justice. The application is disposed of.” 8. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, the present appeal is allowed and it is ordered that directions contained in judgment dated 22nd October, 2016, passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Suresh Kumar and others versus Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC and another alongwith other connection matters, shall mutatis mutandis apply in the present appeal also. However, appellant shall not be entitled to interest for the period of five years 10 months. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.