Back
SANDEEP SHARMA
State Of Himachal Pradesh Through Its Principal Secretary (PWD) To The Government Of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla – Appellant
Versus
Hoshiar Singh Son Of Late Shri Bhagwan Singh – Respondent
ORDER :
Since by way of above captioned applications filed under S.5 of Limitation Act, prayer has been made on behalf of the applicants for condoning the delay in filing the accompanying appeals filed under S.74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter, ‘2013 Act’) against a common award dated 3.10.2020 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh in Land Reference Petitions Nos. 2 of 2018 RBT No. 8/18 (CMP(M) No. 1347 of 2022), 4 of 2018 RBT No. 4/18 (CMP(M) No. 1348 of 2022), 5 of 2018 RBT No. 5/18 (CMP(M) No. 1349 of 2022), 9 of 2018 (CMP(M) No. 1350 of 2022) 10 of 2018 (CMP(M) No. 1351 of 2022) and 8 of 2018 (CMP(M) No. 1362 of 2022), all the applications were clubbed and heard together and are now being disposed of vide common order.
2. Though, vide order dated 17.10.2022, this court, while issuing notices to the respondents, granted time to file replies to the applications, but Learned Counsel appearing for the non-applicant(s), while inviting attention of this Court to judgment dated 25.9.2019 passed by High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in case titled The Deputy
Person Aggrieved May File Appeal - Under S.74 of the 2013 Act, it has been provided that a person aggrieved, may file appeal in the High Court within 60 days of passing of an award.
The court ruled that under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013, appeals must be filed within 120 days, and the court has no power to condone delays beyond th....
The court ruled that under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013, appeals must be filed within 120 days, and the court has no power to condone delays beyond th....
The court held that appeals filed beyond 120 days without sufficient cause cannot be entertained, emphasizing equal standards for government and private parties in legal proceedings.
The court emphasized that while a liberal approach is generally applied in condoning delays under the Limitation Act, lack of sufficient cause, particularly evident inactivity, precludes such discret....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the law of limitation has to be applied with rigor, and a satisfactory explanation is required for condonation of delay.
(1) Law of limitation is founded on public policy – Appeal which is preferred after expiry of limitation is liable to be dismissed.(2) Bar of limitation – Delay is not liable to be condoned merely be....
The court emphasized that the State should not face stricter standards in delay condonation, allowing a 28-day delay due to bona fide reasons including bureaucratic processes and COVID-19 lockdown.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the authority cannot condone delay beyond the maximum statutory period as prescribed by the relevant provisions of the Act of 2013.
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
