Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
JAVED IQBAL WANI, J.
State of J&K Th. Collector Land Acquisition, Samba - Petitioner
Versus
Poonam Jamwal & Ors. - Respondents
Conc No. 155 of 2018
Decided On : 13-07-2021
Condonation of Delay - Land Acquisition - Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1995 - [Land Acquisition] - [Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1995, Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, Order 9 Rule 13 CPC] - The court discussed the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1995 in filing Civil 1st Appeal against the judgment/order dated 31.12.2015 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Samba. The court analyzed the facts of the case, the rejection of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, and the delay in filing the appeal. The court considered the explanations provided by both parties and referred to various judgments, including AIR 1987 SC 187, to establish the legal framework for condonation of delay. The court ultimately dismissed the application for condonation of delay.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1995 in filing Civil 1st Appeal against the judgment/order dated 31.12.2015 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Samba. The delay was attributed to administrative formalities and poor conduct of the counsel appointed by the parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the explanations provided by the applicant for the delay in filing the appeal were not satisfactory. The court also referred to various judgments and legal provisions to establish the principles governing condonation of delay.
Issues: The main issue was whether there was a sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1995.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the law of limitation has to be applied with all its rigor prescribed by a statute. The court emphasized the need for a satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay and dismissed the application for condonation of delay.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1995.
JUDGMENT :
1. In the instant application, applicant seeks condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1995 (Sav. 1938 AD) in filing Civil 1st Appeal against the judgment/order dated 31.12.2015 (for brevity 'impugned order') passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Samba (for brevity 'Reference court') in File No. 09/Civil Reference titled as 'Parladh Singh and another vs. Collector Land Acquisition, Samba read with order dated 25.09.2017, in terms whereof application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC has been rejected.
2. The facts those emerge from the perusal of the case are that an award came to be passed by the Reference court on 31.12.2015, against an award passed by the Collector land Acquisition, Samba-applicant herein in an application filed by the respondents herein under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act.
3. It is contended in the application that the land of the respondents situated at village Nandni, Tehsil Samba came to be acquired for construction of District Complex and after completing the formalities under Land Acquisition Act a final award came to be passed by the Collector Land Acquisition/Deputy Commissioner, Samba dated 17.07.2008 to the tune of ? 37,13,925/- adequacy of which came to be disputed by the land owners/respondents resulting into consequent making of an application before the Collector on 28.10.2008 for making a reference to the Court of learned Principal District, Judge Samba in terms of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of the compensation.
4. It is being next contended that Reference court passed an ex-parte award in terms of order dated 31.12.2015, where after an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC came to be filed by the applicant for setting aside the said award accompanied with an application for condonation of delay. The said application primarily came to be maintained on the ground that the parties to the suit cannot be penalized for the poor conduct of the counsel appointed by them who failed to defend their interest in the court of law in the case. The said application instituted on 02.05.2017 as well came to be dismissed by the Reference court in terms of order dated 25.09.2017 on the premise that the application is found to be without any merit inasmuch as, no sufficient cause is shown for condoning the delay.
5. In the instant application accompanied with the appeal filed on 20.08.2018, 236 days delay has been worked out while calculating the period of limitation in filing the appeal with effect from the date of order dated 25.09.2017, whereunder the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC filed for setting aside the ex-parte award filed by the applicant herein came to be dismissed by the Reference court.
6. In the instant application delay is sought to be condoned on the premises that the period w.e.f. 02.05.2017 i.e., the date of filing of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC before the Reference court for setting aside the award till its decision on 25.09.2017 be excluded, in that the applicant has been pursuing the said remedy. The delay is also being sought to be condoned on the ground that ex-parte award on merits is not sustainable and that the Reference court committed glaring illegality in appreciating both the questions of law and fact and that great public interest is involved in the appeal as the reference court while answering the reference has enhanced the compensation manifold ignoring the mandate of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. Reference and reliance in the instant application is being made and placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1987 SC 187 by the applicant. A liberal approach is prayed to be adopted in the application and inasmuch as, it is being contended that the delay occasioned in filing the appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional, but occurred due to administrative formalities.
7. Per contra, respondents have filed objections in opposition to the instant application, wherein dismissal
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.
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....
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.
(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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellant must provide a reasonable and plausible explanation, absence of negligence or malafides, and legal and adequate reasons to condo....
The court held that bureaucratic inefficiencies do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning delays in appeals, emphasizing accountability in litigation processes.
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
