Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 950
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
G.S. Sandhawalia, Harpreet Kaur Jeewan, JJ.
Union of India - Appellant(s) - Appellant
Versus
Jagdev Singh and others - Respondents - Respondent
LPA-752 of 2002 (O&M)
Decided On : 21-02-2023
Mr. P.C. Goyal, Advocate for the appellant-UOI.
Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate for respondent Nos.5, 6, 8, 12 & 13 (in LPA-752-2002) and for respondent No.8 (in LPA-754-2002).
The main legal point established is that appeals must be filed in accordance with the specified legal provisions and within the prescribed timelines to be maintainable.
Headnote:
Limitation - Land Acquisition Act - Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Appeals not maintainable - Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - No further appeal in certain cases
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Regular First Appeal of the Union of India on the ground of being barred by limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appeals were not maintainable under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Issues: The issues involved the maintainability of the appeals under the mentioned legal provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appeals were not maintainable as they were not filed before 01.07.2002 complete in all respects, and therefore, by the time the amendment had come into force, they were not maintainable.
Final Decision: The court concluded that the present Letters Patent Appeals are not maintainable and are dismissed.
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J.
1. The present judgment shall dispose of three appeals i.e. LPA Nos.752 to 754 of 2002, since common question of law and facts are involved. Facts are being taken from LPA No.752 of 2002 ‘Union of India Vs. Jagdev Singh and others’.
2. The present appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 05.10.2001, whereby the Regular First Appeal of the Union of India was dismissed on the ground of being barred by limitation, as there was a delay of 960 days in re-filing the appeal and there was also a delay of 97 days in filing the appeal. A period of 40 days is provided for removal of discrepancies under the High Court Rules and Orders and learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the impersonal approach was adopted by the public servants in pursuing the affairs of the State and no plausible reason was forth coming to explain why the appeals could not have been presented in time. It was, accordingly, held that it was an unexplainable default which borders negligence and there was a callousness on behalf of the appellants and their representatives, since the appeal was returned by the Office on 08.12.1998, but was not filed till 19.09.2001. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in P.K. Ram Chandran Vs. State of Kerala and another, (1997) 7 SCC 556 to hold that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but the Court has no power to extent the period of limitation on equitable grounds. Resultantly, the application was dismissed and it was directed that the Regular First Appeal also stands dismissed.
3. Thereafter, the present appeals have been filed taking shelter of Clause 10 under the Letters Patent Act, which are further barred by delay of 8 days in filing the appeals and 46 days in re-filing the appeals. For the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay, sufficient case has been made out to condone the delay, as it is settled principle of law that on account of procedural formalities involved nominal delay has occurred.
4. However, regarding the maintainability of the appeals, we are of the considered opinion that in view of Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘1894 Act’), the present appeals are not maintainable. Section 54 reads as under:-
“54. Appeals in proceedings before Court.-Subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, applicable to appeals from original decrees, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any enactment for the time being in force, an appeal shall only lie in any proceedings under this Act to the High Court from the award, or from any part of the award, of the Court and from any decree of the High Court passed on such appeal as aforesaid an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court subject to the provisions contained in section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and in Order XLV thereof.”
5. A perusal of Section 54 of the 1894 Act would go on to show that an appeal lies to this Court against an Award and from the decree of this Court an appeal lies to the Supreme Court. As noticed the application for condonation of delay was dismissed and the learned Single Judge also dismissed the Regular First Appeal. In such circumstances, the remedy did not lie before this Court at the first instance.
6. Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) further provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent for any High Court or in any instrument having the force of law where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by learned Single Judge, no further appeal shall lie from the judgment and decree of such Single Judge. Section 100A reads as under:-
“100A. No further appeal in certain cases.—
Notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent for any High Court or in any instrument having the force of law or in any other law for the time being in force, where any appeal from an original or appe
