Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mrs. Madurima Tatia, Adv. Mr. V. Sridhar Reddy, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, AOR Mr. Rohit Jaiswal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Santosh Krishnan, AOR Mr. Girish Chowdhary, Adv. Ms. Sonam Anand, Adv. Ms. Deepshikha Sansanwal, Adv. Mr. S.L. Soujanya, Adv. Mr. Shaik Mohammed Haneef, Adv.

How to apply the Limitation Act to condone delay under Section 5 in land acquisition appeals? What is the proper balance between Section 3 (strict bar on limitation) and Section 5 (discretionary condonation) in condoning delay? What are the grounds and limitations for condoning inordinate delay in filing appeals challenging Land Acquisition references and references dismissed on limitation?

Key Points: - The law of limitation is founded on public policy and aims to end litigation; appeals filed beyond prescribed periods are generally barred (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Section 3(1) mandates dismissal of suits, appeals or applications filed after the prescribed period, with exceptions only under Sections 4-24, notably Section 5 for condonation upon "sufficient cause" (!) (!) (!) . - Condonation is discretionary, may be refused based on factors like inordinate delay, negligence, lack of due diligence, and cannot be guaranteed by parity with other cases (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Liberal interpretation of "sufficient cause" must be balanced against the rigid, mandatory nature of Section 3 and the statutory framework; mere reliance on relief in other matters is not sufficient (!) (!) (!) . - In the present case, High Court's refusal to condone 5659 days delay was upheld; SLP dismissed, emphasizing lack of due diligence and deviation from precedent that favors strict adherence to limitation statutes (!) (!) (!) . - Prior cases cited (Dhiraj Singh, Imrat Lal, Basawaraj, etc.) illustrate conflicting approaches, but the Court reiterates that condonation cannot be granted solely on analogies or leniency in other petitions; must satisfy "sufficient cause" with adherence to statutory aims (!) (!) (!) (!) .

How to apply the Limitation Act to condone delay under Section 5 in land acquisition appeals?

What is the proper balance between Section 3 (strict bar on limitation) and Section 5 (discretionary condonation) in condoning delay?

What are the grounds and limitations for condoning inordinate delay in filing appeals challenging Land Acquisition references and references dismissed on limitation?