Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR
State of H.P. – Appellant
Versus
Madan Lal (deceased) through LRs – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
Both these applications for adjudication of common question of fact and law are being decided by this common order.
2. These applications have been filed for condonation of delay of 2 years, 1 month and 8 days in filing the Review Petitionsagainst common judgment dated 20.12.2017 passed in RFA No.249 of 2011 with Cross Objection No.450 of 2011, titled as State of H.P. and others vs. Madan Lal and others and RFA No.250 of 2011 with Cross Objection No.451 of 2011, titled as State of H.P. and others vs. Kanshi Ram and others , whereby appeals filed by the State against common Award passed by the Reference Court in Land Reference Petition Nos.144 and 146 of 2008, were dismissed and Cross Objections filed by the respondents/Cross Objectors were allowed, by upholding the value of the land determined by the Reference Court @ Rs.7,00,000/- per bigha for all categories of land irrespective of its classification alongwith other consequential benefits in accordance with provisions of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and by awarding additional interest of 15% per annum on the market value of the land fixed by Reference Cour
Government departments must provide reasonable and acceptable explanations for delays in legal filings, emphasizing diligence in legal proceedings.
Government departments must provide reasonable explanations for delays in filing petitions; absence of sufficient cause results in dismissal of applications for condonation.
The State must provide satisfactory reasons for delay in filing petitions; bureaucratic inefficiency is no excuse. Condonation of delay should not undermine the principles of timely justice.
“unavoidable” and “unspoken” circumstances cannot be taken shelter of to claim condonation of delay in approaching the Courts. In fact the course adopted by the State in preferring the review petitio....
The court ruled that a party cannot justify an inordinate delay in filing a review petition based on subsequent overruling of a prior decision, as it violates the principles of limitation and suffici....
The court emphasized the need to adhere to the statutory limitation period and the requirement of showing sufficient cause for delay in seeking review of judgment and decree.
Limitation - Condonation of delay - Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when statute so prescribe and Courts have no power to extend p....
A government body cannot benefit from its own negligence; explanations for condonation of delay must be reasonable, and inordinate delay jeopardizes the rights of others.
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
