SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Mad) 792

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 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. E.Veda Bagath Singh Spl. Govt. Pleader
For the Respondents: Mr. S.L. Sudarsanam

The court ruled that delays exceeding the prescribed limit in legal appeals must have satisfactory justification; negligence in filing does not warrant condonation.

Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Writ Appeals against order of Writ Court - Delay of 972 days - Explanation for delay not satisfactory - The appellants failed to show bona fide reasons for filing delay, hence, their request was denied. (Paras 15-28)

(B) Writ Appeal - The standard period of limitation for filing appellate proceedings should be adhered to, and the courts hold discretion to condone delays only when justified. (Paras 13-14)

(C) Legal Principles - Justifiable explanations for delay are necessary to prioritize substantial justice over strict adherence to timelines; courts should exercise caution in allowing lapses that lack bona fides. (Paras 16-27)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought to appeal against an order allowing compensation for land acquisition which they claimed was wrongly denied on grounds of classification. They filed Civil Miscellaneous Petitions to condone significant delays in their appeals.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the explanation for the delay was neither reasonable nor sufficient and reflected negligence rather than bona fides.

Issues: The court addressed whether the delay in filing appeals was justified and whether to condone it under the Limitation Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity for valid explanations when seeking to condone delay; lapses attributed to negligence were not sufficient grounds for the appeals.

Result: Civil Miscellaneous Petitions and Writ Appeals dismissed.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top