ORDER : CMP(M) No. 659 of 2020 1. By way of instant application filed under S. 5 of Limitation Act, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for condonation of delay in filing the civil revision petition. 2. Reply to the application stands filed by the respondents, wherein prayer made in the instant application has been opposed on the ground of inordinate delay. It has been averred in the reply that there is no plausible explanation rendered on record for the delay in filing the accompanying petition. Though it has been averred in the application that delay in filing the petition is neither willful nor intentional rather on account of circumstances, which were completely beyond the control of the petitioners, but having carefully perused the averments contained in the application as well as supplementary affidavits filed from time to time pursuant to the orders passed in the matter, this court finds that no plausible explanation has been rendered on record qua the delay. Though repeatedly this court granted opportunity to the petitioners to explain the delay by way of filing supplementary affidavit but every time, nothing came to be placed on record, save and except medical certificate, whereby attempt has been made to show that on account of illness, petitioners were unable to approach this court within time. 3. In the case at hand, order sought to be laid challenge by way of petition was passed on 15.6.2007, and application for copy was filed on 17.10.2020. Though certified copy was attested on 28.10.2020 and thereafter, same was supplied on 13.3.2020. There is no explanation with regard to delay occurred between 15.6.2007 to 17.10.2020. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited attention of this court to judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Dhiraj Singh (dead) through legal representatives and others v. State of Haryana and others, (2014) 14 SCC 127 , to contend that in land acquisition matters, while considering prayer for condonation of delay in filing appeal, approach of the court should be pragmatic and not pedantic. Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that the substantive rights of the appellants should not be allowed to be defeated on technical grounds by taking hyper-technical view of self-imposed limitation. Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the judgment (supra) as under: “16. Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that the substantive rights of the appellants should not be allowed to be defeated on technical grounds by taking hyper-technical view of self-imposed limitation. Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the judgment (supra) 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 sub-serves 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. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. 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.” 5. 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. 6. Though, in the case at hand, as has been observed herein above, there is no plausible explanation rendered on record qua delay but since great prejudice would be caused to the petitioners in the event of dismissal of application, because in that event they would be denied enhancement in compensation, which has been done in the case of similarly situate persons, whose land was also acquired with land of the petitioner for public purpose. Besides above, this court finds that the order sought to be laid challenge by way of accompanying petition is totally unsustainable on account of the fact that authority below dismissed application of the petitioners, on account of delay but at no point of time, it afforded opportunity of hearing to the petitioners rather, it completely ignored the application under S. 5 of Limitation Act preferred alongwith the application for making reference. 7. 7. Consequently, in view of the peculiar facts of case and law taken note above, this court is convinced and satisfied that the delay in maintaining the accompanying revision petition deserves to be condoned and same is hereby condoned. Application stands disposed of. Civil Revision No. 178 of 2022 8. Be registered. 9. By way of instant revision petition filed under S. 115 CPC, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners to set aside order 15.6.2007 passed by Land Acquisition Collector, Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh in Om Prakash v. Land Acquisition Collector HPPWD Mandi, whereby reference petition preferred by petitioners was dismissed on the ground of delay. 10. After having heard learned counsel for the parties vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned order dated 15.6.2007 (Annexure P- 6) passed by Land Acquisition Collector Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department Mandi, this court finds that after three years of passing of supplementary award No. 28 dated 1.11.2003, petitioner made a reference petition before Land Acquisition Collector HPPWD Mandi, praying therein to refer the matter to reference court, however, such prayer of the petitioners came to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Land Acquisition Collector having taken note of fact that prayer to refer the matter to the reference court was made after 6 months, dismissed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for making reference under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, however, he completely failed to take note of fact that alongwith said application, petitioners had also filed an application under S. 5 of Limitation for condonation of delay. No doubt, as per Ss. 18(2) and S. 12(2), six months time is provided for making reference to the reference court enabling him to pass order under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 but aforesaid question was not within the competence of the Land Acquisition Collector to be decided, rather he was bound to make reference to the reference court, which could have framed issue in this regard and decided the same, but definitely, this could not be done by the Land Acquisition Collector. 11. Otherwise also this court finds that at the time of passing order dated 15.6.2007, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners, rather, learned court below simply taking note of provision contained under Ss. 11. Otherwise also this court finds that at the time of passing order dated 15.6.2007, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners, rather, learned court below simply taking note of provision contained under Ss. 18(2) and 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 proceeded to dismiss application for making reference. 12. In Gokul Ram and others v. The Land Acquisition Collector and another, CWP No. 2363/2018-G, decided on 8.10.2018, wherein, Land Acquisition Collector concerned had refused to make reference under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the reference court, Division Bench of this Court, while allowing the petition observed that reference under S. 18 of the Act should be entertained on merit as it is adjudicateable only by the reference court and such power cannot be acquired by Land Acquisition Collector who is merely required to make reference to the reference court. Division Bench held in the aforesaid judgment as under: “2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and are of the considered view that the question as to whether or not, a reference under Section 18 of the Act, should be entertained on merit or should it be turned down on the ground of limitation, is adjudicateable by the Reference Court only, namely, the Court of District Judge/Additional District Judge and such power cannot be assumed by the Land Acquisition Collector, who is merely required to refer the application to the Court of competent jurisdiction. Such a view in detail has been taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 06.07.2018 passed in CMPMO No.237 of 2017 titled as Jalmi Ram and Others vs. The Land Acquisition Collector and another.” 13. Consequently, in view of the above, impugned order dated 15.6.2007 passed by Land Acquisition Collector, Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh is quashed and set aside and it is directed to make reference to the competent court of jurisdiction, forthwith, enabling said court to adjudicate the reference. Question of limitation in approaching the reference court under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is left open to be decided by the reference Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to make available a copy of this order to Land Acquisition Collector HPPWD Mandi, enabling it to pass appropriate orders, within two weeks. Petition stands disposed of in the afore terms, alongwith all pending applications.