IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SURESH KUMAR, SHAMIM AHMED, JJ.
The District Collector, Thiruvallur District – Petitioners
Versus
P.Rajasekaran - Respondents
WA.SR.Nos.105450 & 106444 of 2024 & C.M.P.Nos.17783 & 17784 of 2024 W.A.SR.No.105450 of 2024
Decided On : 21-01-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. property ownership and acquisition for construction. (Para 1 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments for and against delay in filing. (Para 6 , 10 , 14) |
| 3. court's observations on the delay justification. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 15) |
| 4. principles governing condonation of delay. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 21) |
| 5. dismissal of petitions and compliance directive. (Para 28 , 30 , 31) |
JUDGMENT :
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
These intra court appeals have been directed against the judgment and order passed by the Writ Court dated 26.10.2021 made in W.P.Nos.13803 and 13397 of 2018.
2. The present Civil Miscellaneous Petitions under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are filed by the petitioners/Appellants to condone the delay of 972 days in filing the above Writ Appeals against the judgment and Order dated 26.10.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.13803 and 13397 of 2018.
3. Since both the Writ Appeals arisen out of common Judgment and Order passed by the learned Single Judge, both the appeals and Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are disposed of by a common order.
4. Before the Writ Court, the respondents herein have filed writ petitions against the petitioners herein seeking for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 16.02.2018 made in Na.Ka.13835/2017/F1 rejecting their claim for granting compensation in respect of their lands acquired by the Government and consequentially direct the respondents therein to consider their representation dated 10.07.2017 and to immediately settle compensation for thier property acquired by the Government/appellants herein.
5. The facts of the case leading to filing of the present Writ Appeals as per the appellants are as follows:
(a) The writ petitioner in W.P.No.13803 of 2018 viz., Rajasekaran is the absolute owner of the property comprised in S.No.143/2, T.S.No.2, New T.S.No.2/2 measuring an extent of 2300.0 square meter, situated in Ward C, Block No.5, Ennore Village, Thiruvottriyur Taluk, Thiruvallur District, bearing No.27/143/2, M.R.L. Road, Ennore, Chennnai – 57 and he purchased the larger extent of lands from one Mr.Balaraman through a registered sale deed under Doc.No.3490/1982.
(b) The Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.13397 of 2018 viz., P.Manoharan is the absolute owner of the property comprised in S.No.143/2, T.S.No.30/1, New T.S.No.30/2, measuring an extent of 2300.0 square meter situated in Ward C, Block No.5, Ennore Village, Thiruvottriyur Taluk, Thiruvallur District, bearing No.27/143/2, M.R.L. Road, Ennore, Chennai 600 057 and he purchased the larger extent of lands from one Mr.Balaraman through a registered sale deed under Doc.No.3490/1982.
(c) Since the date of purchase of the properties, they have been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same. After purchase of said lands, mutation of records were done in their names and Town Survey Field Extract (TSLR) dated 31.07.2015 reflects their names in C.A.259 of 85 and C.A.No.260/85.
(d) On the strength of mutation of records, they have also obtained planning permission from CMDA authorities, pursuant to which, they have also put up construction on their lands.
(e) Whileso, for the purpose of construction of Over Bridge, the Government of Tamilnadu had acquired the portion of the writ petitioner/Rajasekaran’s lands comprised in S.No.2/2 Part, (New No.27, Old no.143/2 part measuring an extent of 240 square meters and portion of the writ petitioner/Manoharan’s lands comprised in S.No.30/1 part (New No.30/2, Old No.143/2 Part measuring 170 square meters together with super structure thereon. After award enquiry, compensation for both the lands belonging to the writ petitioners were fixed and accordingly, the compensation amount was arrived at Rs.28,83,361/- and Rs.22,62,163/- respectively for both the writ petitioners. The value was fixed by the 2nd respondent based on the documents produced by the writ petitioners. Pursuant to that, relevant proceedings for the land acquisitions were carried out and the
Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Katiji
P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala
Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari
Maniben Devraj Shah Vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai
The court ruled that delays exceeding the prescribed limit in legal appeals must have satisfactory justification; negligence in filing does not warrant condonation.
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.
The court ruled that the petitioners failed to establish sufficient cause to condone a 1325-day delay in filing an appeal, emphasizing the necessity of a bona fide explanation under the Limitation Ac....
Though the Courts are required to weigh scale of balance of justice in respect of both the parties, the said principle cannot be given a total good-bye in the name of liberal approach.
(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....
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.
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....
Delay in filing a second appeal cannot be condoned without sufficient cause; administrative reasons and natural calamities must be substantiated with evidence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.