Vague pleas of settlement talks and financial crisis cannot justify inordinate delay in filing an appeal.

The applicants sought condonation of a delay of 1601 days in filing a First Appeal against a Land Acquisition Award dated 16.04.2021.

The applicants claimed their names were entered in revenue records in 2011 and they were entitled to compensation.

They justified the delay by citing ongoing settlement talks and financial crises.

The original claimants opposed the application, noting that the applicants were never parties to the land acquisition proceedings from 2007 until the 2021 judgment and had raised no claims or objections before the Reference Court.

1. Whether a delay of 1601 days can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, based on vague claims of settlement talks and financial hardship.

2. Whether the applicants established "sufficient cause" for their non-participation in the original proceedings and the subsequent delay in filing the appeal.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allows for condonation of delay upon showing "sufficient cause".

The principle from Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram & Sunder Singh (2023), establishing that financial incapacity is generally not a valid ground for condonation.

The doctrine in Pathapati Subba Reddy v. Special Deputy Collector (LA) (2024), which clarifies that while Section 5 should be construed liberally to advance justice, it cannot be used to defeat substantive law where there is gross negligence or a lack of due diligence.

The distinction between a legitimate "explanation" and a mere "excuse" as cited in State of Odisha v. Managing Committee of Namatara Girls High Schools (2026).

The court found the applicants' justifications—settlement talks and financial crisis—to be "spacious, vague," and unsupported by documentary evidence.

Regarding the financial plea, the court noted that per Ajay Dabra, such a claim does not excuse a failure to file within the statutory period.

Crucially, the court observed that the applicants were "utterly lethargic" and had voluntarily stayed away from the entire land acquisition process from 2007 to 2021.

The court reasoned that while "sufficient cause" warrants a liberal approach, it cannot be invoked to rescue a party that has shown total inaction or a lack of bona fides, especially when the delay is as colossal as 1601 days.

The applicants failed to demonstrate a "prejudicially affected" right or an actionable claim that justified such an inordinate delay.

The request to register the First Appeal was rejected.

The court further directed the Reference Court to disburse the deposited compensation to the original claimants after due verification.