Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BELA M. TRIVEDI, DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.
Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Union Of India & Anr. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5867 Of 2015
Decided On : 09-10-2023
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 18 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Reference – Appeal against – Limitation – Condonation of delay – Delay of around 479 days in presentation of appeal – Expression ‘sufficient cause’ in Section 5 must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring appeals are required to be condoned in interest of justice – Condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon sufficiency of cause shown and degree of acceptability of explanation, length of delay being immaterial – When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against one another, former would prevail – High Court’s decision to condone delay on account of first respondent’s inability to present appeal within time, does not suffer from any error – Hidden forces that are at work in preventing appeal by State being presented within prescribed period of limitation so as not to allow a higher court to pronounce upon legality and validity of an order of a lower court and thereby secure unholy gains, can hardly be ignored – Impediments in working of grand scheme of governmental functions have to be removed by taking a pragmatic view on balancing of competing interests – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 25, 29, 31, 37 and 38)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal, at the instance of certain affected landowners, challenges an order dated 21st December 2011 passed by a Single Judge of High Court of Delhi. By the order under challenge, High Court allowed an application filed by the Union of India under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and thereby condoned the delay of around 479 days in presentation of an appeal from decision of the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Limited issue is, whether High Court was justified in condoning delay in presentation of the appeal.
Findings of Court:
Impugned order reasonably condones the delay caused in presenting the appeal by the first respondent before the High Court, present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(Dipankar Datta, J.)
THE CHALLENGE
1. This appeal, at the instance of certain affected landowners, challenges an order dated 21st December 2011 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi (“High Court”, hereafter). By the order under challenge, the High Court allowed an application filed by the Union of India (“first respondent”, hereafter) under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (“Limitation Act”, hereafter) and thereby condoned the delay of around 479 days in presentation of an appeal from the decision of the Reference Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
THE ISSUE
2. The limited issue that we are tasked to decide is, whether the High Court was justified in condoning the delay in presentation of the appeal. In the process, we need to necessarily consider whether the first respondent had shown sufficient cause for which the appeal could not be presented within the prescribed period of limitation.
RELEVANT FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE APPEAL
3. The appeal has its genesis in a proceeding for acquisition of land. It is noticed from the materials on record that the Reference Court in LAC No. 198/08, vide its order dated 31st October 2008, enhanced compensation payable to the landowners. Such order was sought to be challenged by the first respondent in an appeal before the High Court on 2nd June 2010, numbered as LA. App. No. 655/2010. Since the appeal was time barred (delayed by 479 days), the first respondent applied for condonation of delay.
4. After considering the pleadings as well as the other materials on record, the High Court was satisfied that the first respondent, as the appellant, had shown sufficient cause for which it could not present the appeal within time; hence, vide the impugned order, it proceeded to allow C.M. No. 11018/2010. The delay of 479 days in presentation of the appeal was condoned but not without the High Court imposing costs of Rs. 10,000/- on the first respondent.
5. The explanation put forth by the first respondent, which ultimately found favour with the High Court, reveals the lamentable institutional inefficiency and the deplorable bureaucratic inertia.
6. The following events in the aftermath of the order of the Reference Court need to be briefly mentioned. Counsel who represented the first respondent before the Reference Court applied for the certified copy of the Reference Court’s order on 22nd April 2009, despite the same being passed on 31st October 2008. Thereafter, certified copy was received on 30th July 2009. On 10th August 2009, the Deputy Legal Advisor (Land and Building) advised the first respondent to file an appeal before the High Court. The Principal Secretary (Land and Building) then approved the proposal for filing the appeal on 11th August 2009 (erroneously mentioned as 2010 in the application for condonation delay before the High Court). The Deputy Legal Advisor (Land and Building) thereafter sent the certified copy and the approval of the Principal Secretary to the Deputy Commissioner (East) on 26th August 2009, which was received on 28th August 2009, whereupon the case file reached the Land Acquisition Collector on 31st August 2009. The case file was next forwarded to the counsel for the first respondent for preparation of the appeal on 17th September 2009, and the same was sent back to the first respondent on 7th October 2009. The file for payment of the requisite court fee of Rs. 51,36,592/- was put up before the relevant Deputy Commissioner on 12th October 2009. Subsequently, the budget for the same was sanctioned on 15th December 2009. The certified copy of the order of the Reference Court, in the meanwhile, was misplaced necessitating another application for the same which was made on 24th October 2009. Pursuant thereto, certified copy was received on 3rd November 2009; thereafter the Accounts Department, on 12th January 2010, sent the case file to the Finance Department for the requisite funds. The Finance Department’s letter dated
Limitation – Condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon sufficiency of cause shown and degree of acceptability of explan....
A liberal approach is essential in condoning delays, particularly for government bodies, ensuring that procedural delays do not hinder substantial justice.
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' for delay condonation, emphasizing the importance of substantial justice and the protection of....
The court held that bureaucratic inefficiencies do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning delays in appeals, emphasizing accountability in litigation processes.
The court held that for condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the party must demonstrate sufficient cause, with mere negligence or vague explanations failing to meet this burden.
(1) Limitation – Condonation of delay – Phrase “within such period” signifies that period covered therein extends to not only original period within which, appeal or application, should have been fil....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
