Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
V.Sankararaman – Appellant
Versus
The Competent Authority and The Special District Revenue Officer (LA) – Respondent
C.R.P.Nos. 3168, 3222, 3230, 3231, 3236, 3377, 3383 to 3386, 3552 to 3555, 3557, 3608 of 2022
Decided on : 05-01-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - National Highways Act, 1956 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 (3) - Civil Revision Petition - Quantum of compensation - Revision petitioners are claimants - Lands belong to revision petitioners were acquired during by respondents under provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 - First respondent/competent authority passed an award by fixing value of land at acquired lands - Held, It is further observed that even though limitation may harshly affect rights of a party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed by statute. In case a party has acted with negligence, lack of bona fides or there is inaction then there cannot be any justified ground for condoning delay even by imposing conditions - Each application for condonation of delay has to be decided within framework laid down by this Court - If courts start condoning delay where no sufficient cause is made out by imposing conditions then that would amount to violation of statutory principles and showing utter disregard to legislature - Civil Revision Petitions dismissed.
ORDER :
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the Fair and Decreetal order dated 08.07.2022 made in I.A.No.1/2020 in Un-numbered Arb.OP.Sr.No------/2020 (Sr.No. 4854/2013) on the file of the Hon'ble Principal District Judge Court, Salem and allow the said Interlocutory Application by allowing the above CRP.
The issues involved in the present Civil Revision Petitions are one and the same and hence, they are disposed of by this common order. These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed to set aside the Fair and Decreetal Orders passed by the Principal District Court, Salem and the same are tabulated below:
Sl.No. C.R.P.Nos. I.A.Nos. Un-numbered Arb.OP.Sr.Nos. Dated
1. CRP.No.3386 of 2022 I.A.No.1 of 2020 Arb.O.P.Sr.No..../2020 (Sr.No.4854 of 2013) 08.07.2022
2. CRP.No.3168 of 2022 I.A.No.1 of 2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2020 Arb.O.P.Sr.No..../2020 (Sr.No.4839 of 2013) 01.02.2022
3. CRP.No.3222 of 2022 I.A.No.3 of 2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2020 Arb.O.P.Sr.No..../2020 (Sr.No.4861 of 2013) 01.02.2022
4. CRP.No.3230 of 2022 I.A.No.3 of 2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2020 Arb.O.P.Sr.No..../2020 (Sr.No.4854 of 2013) 01.02.2022
5. CRP.No.3231 of 2022 I.A.No.2 of 2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2020 Arb.O.P.Sr.No..../2020 (Sr.No.4851 of 2013) 01.02.2022
6. CRP.No.3236 of 2022 I.A.No.3 of 2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2020 Arb.O.P.Sr.No..../2020 (Sr.No.4846 of 2013) 01.02.2022
7. CRP.No.3377 of 2022 I.A.No.1 of 2020 Arb.O.P.Sr.No..../2020 (Sr.No.4839 of 2013) 08.07.2022
8. CRP.No.3383 of 2022 I.A.No.1 of 2020 Arb.O.P.Sr.No..../2020 (Sr.No.4861 of 2013) 08.07.2022
9. CRP.No.3384 of 2022 I.A.No.1 of 2020 Arb.O.P.Sr.No..../2020 (Sr.No.4846 of 2013) 08.07.2022
10. CRP.No.3385 of 2022 I.A.No.1 of 2020 Arb.O.P.Sr.No..../2020 (Sr.No.4851 of 2013) 08.07.2022
11. CRP.No.3552 of 2022 I.A.No.2 of 2021 in I.A.No.3 of 2020 Arb.O.P.Sr.No..../2020 (Sr.No.4844 of 2013) 01.02.2022
12. CRP.No.3553 of 2022 I.A.No.2 of 2020 Arb.O.P.Sr.No..../2020 (Sr.No.4842 of 2013) 08.07.2022
13. CRP.No.3554 of 2022 I.A.No.2 of 2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2020 Arb.O.P.No..../2020 (Sr.No.4852 of 2013) 01.02.2022
14. CRP.No.3555 of 2022 I.A.No.2 of 2021 in I.A.No.2 of 2020 Arb.O.P.Sr.No..../2020 (Sr.No.4842 of 2013) 01.02.2022
15 CRP.No.3557 of 2022 I.A.No.2 of 2020 Arb.O.P.Sr.No..../2020 (Sr.No.4844 of 2013) 08.07.2022
16. CRP.No.3608 of 2022 I.A.No.1 of 2020 Arb.O.P.Sr.No..../2020 (Sr.No.4852 of 2013) 08.07.2022
2. The revision petitioners are the claimants. The lands belong to the revision petitioners were acquired during the year 2008 by the respondents under the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956. The first respondent/competent authority passed an award on 08.11.2012 by fixing value of the land at Rs.117.85/- per sq.ft for the acquired lands. On reference to the District Collector, Salem, the quantum of compensation was enhanced marginally and determined at Rs.495/- per sq.ft. The revision petitioners filed applications before the Principal District Court, Salem on 18.03.2013 to set aside the Arbitral Award passed by the District Collector, Salem, seeking further enhancement. The applications filed by the claimants on 18.03.2013 were returned on 30.04.2013, noting certain defects, enabling the applicants to comply with the defects. The maintainability issue was also raised.
3. While so, the Project Director, National Highways Authority of India filed an application on 06.08.2013 to set aside the award passed by the District Collector, Salem on 08.11.2012. The revision petitioners have stated that the application filed by the revision petitioners on 18.03.2013 was returned on 30.04.2013 and it was represented on 28.06.2013 and again, it was returned on 08.07.2013 to rectify the defects noted down by the Principal District Court, Salem.
4. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioners mainly contended that the delay of 2349 days in representation was neither willful nor wa
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for convincing and acceptable reasons for condonation of delay, emphasizing that the length of delay is not material, but the reasons stat....
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
