ORDER : 1. The present application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 1050 days caused in preferring the First Appeal challenging the judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court in LAR Case No.278 of 2012, whereby the learned Reference Court awarded additional compensation for the land acquired of village Andej at the rate of Rs.276.30 per sq. metre, relying upon the acquisition proceedings pertaining to Yashwantpura, against which First Appeal No. 297 of 2014 was filed and came to be dismissed. 2. Heard the learned AGP Mr.Parth Patel for the State. 3. Learned AGP Mr. Patel has reiterated the grounds stated in the application for condonation of delay and submitted that, due to administrative reasons, the delay in filing the First Appeal came to be caused. It is therefore prayed that the application be allowed and the First Appeal may be decided on merits. 4. Having considered the submissions made by the learned AGP and on referring to the grounds raised in the application as well as the judgment of the learned Reference Court, it emerges from the record that the land under acquisition was acquired for the purpose of construction of a canal under the Narmada Yojana, namely the Iyava Vishakha Canal. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be issued on 08.04.2008 for the land situated at Village Andej, Taluka Sanand, District Ahmedabad, and thereafter the award under Section 11 was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.10.05 per square metre. Being aggrieved by the same, the landowners preferred a Reference under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement of compensation to the extent of Rs.1,000/- per square metre. The learned Reference Court, while adjudicating the said reference, relied on the judgment rendered in respect of the adjoining Village Yashwantpura, which having a common boundary with Village Andej. In the case of Village Yashwantpura, the notification under Section 4 was published on 26.12.2007 and the market value was determined at the rate of Rs.279.39 per square metre. The learned Reference Court, while adjudicating the said reference, relied on the judgment rendered in respect of the adjoining Village Yashwantpura, which having a common boundary with Village Andej. In the case of Village Yashwantpura, the notification under Section 4 was published on 26.12.2007 and the market value was determined at the rate of Rs.279.39 per square metre. It is required to be noted that against the award pertaining to Village Yashwantpura, the appeal preferred by the State being First Appeal No.298 of 2014 came to be dismissed vide order dated 04.03.2014, and thereafter the State accepted the said award and did not challenge the same before any higher forum. Relying upon the said judgment, the learned Reference Court in the present case determined the market value and directed the State authorities to pay additional compensation at the rate of Rs.276.30 per square metre. The said award is sought to be challenged in the present First Appeal, and since there is a delay of 1050 days in filing the First Appeal, the present application has been filed seeking condonation of delay. 5. The State has referred the following grounds in the application for condonation of delay: “2. It is submitted that Ld. Principal Senior Civil Judge, and Special Judge (L.A.Q.), Narmada Yojana, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur has pronounced the Judgment and Award on 21.10.2022. Thereafter, on 02.11.2022, an application was preferred by the Deponent Department for getting the certified copy of the Judgment and Award dated 21.10.2022 and the same was received on 18.11.2022. 3. It is submitted that on 14.03.2023, the Narmada, Water Resource, Water Supply and Kalpsar Department received the opinion of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmedabad. 4. It is submitted that on 29.03.2023, the Narmada, Water Resource, Water Supply and Kalpsar Department forwarded a letter to the General Manager (Land), Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. to call for Law Officer Rules and on 31.03.2023, the same was received. 5.It is submitted that on 17.05.2023, the Narmada, Water Resource, Water Supply and Kalpsar Department received a completion from the Deputy Collector and Special Land Acquisition Officer (Narmada). 6. 5.It is submitted that on 17.05.2023, the Narmada, Water Resource, Water Supply and Kalpsar Department received a completion from the Deputy Collector and Special Land Acquisition Officer (Narmada). 6. It is submitted that on 01.06.2023, the Narmada, Water Resource, Water Supply and Kalpsar Department forwarded a letter to the Deputy Collector and Special Land Acquisition Officer (Narmada) for verification and resubmission of the opinion and on 12.09.2023, the reminder letter was forwarded to the Deputy Collector and Special Land Acquisition Officer (Narmada). 7. It is submitted that on 21.11.2023, the Narmada, Water Resource, Water Supply and Kalpsar Department Narmada, Water Resource, Water Supply and Kalpsar Department forwarded a letter to the Additional Collector (Narmada) to examine all the cases and submit an opinion with self-explanatory reasons and on 15.02.2024 and 14.06.2024 a reminder letter was forwarded to the Additional Collector (Narmada). It is further submitted that on 19.06.2024 the compliance has been received from the Additional Collector (Narmada). 8. It is submitted that on 18.07.2024 the compliance has been received from the Deputy Collector and Special Land Acquisition Officer (Narmada). 9. It is submitted that on 26.07.2024 as per the office order a committee was formed to take decision with regards to court cases of Narmada Project. It is further submitted that on 30.07.2024 all the cases were sent to the Additional Collector (Narmada), Ahmedabad to present before the committee for decision. 10. It is submitted that on 06.11.2024, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmedabad forwarded a L.O.R to the Additional Collector (Narmada) to present the cases before the committee. 11. It is submitted that on 08.11.2024, the present case was placed before the committee constituted for Narmada Yojana Land Acquisition Court Cases for consideration and decision. 12. It is submitted that on 14.11.2024, the Narmada, Water Resource, Water Supply and Kalpsar Department forwarded a letter to the Manager (Land), Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited to give his new opinion and on 28.11.2024, an opinion has been received. 13. It is submitted that on 18.02.2025 the proposal was presented before the Legal Department for filing an appeal. It is further submitted that on 18.03.2025, the Legal Department reject the proposal. 14. It is submitted that on 20.03.2025, in order to produce the present case before the State Litigation Committee a letter was forwarded to the Additional Collector (Narmada) to obtain the case details. 15. It is further submitted that on 18.03.2025, the Legal Department reject the proposal. 14. It is submitted that on 20.03.2025, in order to produce the present case before the State Litigation Committee a letter was forwarded to the Additional Collector (Narmada) to obtain the case details. 15. It is submitted that on 16.07.2025, the present case was placed before the State Litigation Committee. It is further submitted that on 29.07.2025, the proceedings of the State Litigation Committee meeting held on 16.07.2025 have been received in the Narmada, Water Resource, Water Supply and Kalpsar Department. 16. It is submitted that on 29.07.2025 the proposal was placed before the Legal Department for filing an appeal. It is further submitted that on 08.08.2025 the Legal Department approved the said proposal and instructed the Office of the Government Law Officers for filing an appeal in consultation with the Narmada, Water Resource, Water Supply and Kalpsar Department, which was received to the Office of the Government Law Officers on 11.08.2025. 17. It is submitted that on 19.08.2025, the office of the Deputy Collector and Special Land Acquisition Officer, Narmada Yojana, Ahmedabad forwarded a letter to obtain a certified copy of the impugned Judgment and Award to the Office of Executive Engineer. 18. It is submitted that the certified copies of the impugned Judgment and Award was received from the Hon'ble District Court on 06.09.2025. 19. It is further submitted that on 09.09.2025 the office of Deputy Collector and Special Land Acquisition Officer, Narmada Yojana, Ahmedabad submitted the certified copy of the Judgment and Award along with the requisite documents to the Office of the Government Law Officers to file an appeal in above said case. 20. It is submitted that the Office of the Government Law Officer, High Court of Gujarat had forwarded communication dated 11.09.2025 to the Office of Executive Engineer, Narmada Canal Project Division No. 9, Sanand, Ahmedabad to arrange requisite Court Fee i.e., as per new S.O.P. of this Hon'ble Court. Thereafter, the Office of Executive Engineer, Narmada Canal Project Division No. 9, Sanand, Ahmedabad had sent demand draft of requisite Court Fee to the office of Government Law Officers, High Court of Gujarat on 20.09.2025. Thereafter, the Appeal has been filed before this Hon'ble Court thus, a delay of 1050 days has taken place in filing the accompanying First Appeal.” 6. Thereafter, the Appeal has been filed before this Hon'ble Court thus, a delay of 1050 days has taken place in filing the accompanying First Appeal.” 6. On referring to the aforesaid grounds, it emerges that after obtaining the certified copy of the judgment and award dated 21.10.2022, a period of nearly six months, i.e. up to 01.06.2023. Thereafter, further time up to 18.07.2024 was consumed for obtaining the opinion from Narmada Water Resources, Water Supply and Kalpsar Department department. Subsequently, the matter was placed before the Committee constituted for taking decisions with regard to court cases pertaining to the Narmada Project. Even thereafter, up to 18.02.2025, when the proposal was ultimately placed before the Legal Department, no effective or proactive steps were taken to ensure that either the award was complied with or the same was challenged within the prescribed period of limitation. Ultimately, it was only on 08.08.2025, i.e. after the lapse of the statutory period of limitation by several months, that a decision was taken by the Legal Department to prefer an appeal challenging the judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court. It is also required to be noted that the land in question was acquired in the year 2007 and the claimant lost possession of the land in the same year. Even after a lapse of about nineteen years, the claimant has not received reasonable compensation. As observed earlier, on getting the certified copy on 18.11.2022 upto 14.03.2023 no explanation is offered i.e. the time limit for filing the appeal. Even thereafter also except the mandatory government procedure for getting the approval and the opinion no other explanation was offered for the delay of 1050 day. In the opinion of this Court such explanation is not only insufficient but suggesting the lackadaisical approach of the State Government. 7. It is also required to be noted herein that in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramkumar Choudhary, (2025) 2 GLR 987 the Apex Court has observed that the Court is required to examine what prevented the party from filing the appeal between the first day and last day of limitation. The party is entitled to avail entire period of limitation, once limitation expired and sufficient cause is pleaded such must disclose that due to an event or circumstances arising before the expiry of limitation it was not possible to file an appeal within time. The party is entitled to avail entire period of limitation, once limitation expired and sufficient cause is pleaded such must disclose that due to an event or circumstances arising before the expiry of limitation it was not possible to file an appeal within time. Any event or circumstances arise after the expiry of limitation cannot constitute sufficient cause. 8. This Court has referred the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Thirunagalingam vs. Lingeswaran and Another, (2025) 6 SCR 253: “31. It is a well-settled law that while considering the plea for condonation of delay, the first and foremost duty of the court is to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation rather than starting with the merits of the main matter. Only when sufficient cause or reasons given for the delay by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced or stand on equal footing, the court may consider the merits of the main matter for the purpose of condoning the delay. 32. Further, this Court has repeatedly emphasised in several cases that delay should not be condoned merely as an act of generosity. The pursuit of substantial justice must not come at the cost of causing prejudice to the opposing party. In the present case, the respondents/defendants have failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds of delay in pursuing the matter, and this crucial requirement for condoning the delay remains unmet. 33. Therefore, in the case at hand, once it has been established that the reasons provided for condoning the delay in the application filed are not sufficient, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the contentions raised by the learned counsel of Respondents regarding Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.” 9. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court, the explanation offered by the applicant is not only inadequate but also smacks of mala fide intention on the part of the State authorities. Resultantly, the present application is rejected.