The court determines that strict adherence to territorial jurisdiction should not impede access to justice for accident victims, advocating a liberal interpretation of relevant statutes.

1. Heard on IA No. 1 of 2016 for condonation of delay in filing the instant MAC which is barred by limitation by 621 days.

IA No. 1 of 2016 is opposed on behalf of respondent No. 3.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the delay caused is bonafide and unintentional. The appellants are villagers and not aware of limitation laws. After obtaining necessary documents and arranging funds for filing the instant appeal, the appellants had preferred the instant MAC against the impugned order passed by the Tribunal vide order dated 28.7.2014 whereby the claim of the claimants - appellants was denied merely on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. The matter was not disposed of by the concerned Tribunal on its merit. Hence, the delay of 621 days may be condoned.

The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the matter of Imrat Lal v. Land Acquisition Collector , 2014 (14) SCC 133 , where the land acquisition proceedings were challenged by the landowners removed from their land praying for enhancement of compensation. Examining the issue of delay of 1,110 days in filing the petition and the background of the petitioners therein, it was held by the Supreme Court as under:

"(11) We can take judicial notice of the fact that the villagers in our country are by and large illiterate and are not conversant with the intricacies of law. They are usually guided by their co - villagers, who are familiar with the proceedings in the courts or the advocates with whom they get in touch for redressal of their grievance. Affidavits filed in support of the applications for condonation of delay are usually drafted by the advocates on the basis of half - baked information made available by the affected persons. Therefore, in the acquisition matters involving claim for award of just compensation, the court should adopt a liberal approach and either grant time to the party to file a better affidavit to explain delay or suo motu take cognizance of the fact that large number of other similarly situated persons who were affected by the determination of compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer or the Reference Court have been granted relief.

(12) In Samiyathal v. Tahsildar, decided on 5.7.2013, this court took cognizance of the fact that many landowners may not have been able to seek intervention of this court for grant of enhanced compensation due to illiteracy, poverty and ignorance and issued direction that those who have not filed special leave petition should be given enhanced compensation. The relevant portion of the judgment passed in that case is extracted below:

'we further direct the respondents and the State of Tamil Nadu to pay the same amount of compensation to other land - owners whose land was acquired by the Notification dated 22.5.1991, but who may have, on account of ignorance, poverty and other similar handicaps, not been able to approach the Reference Court or may not have been able to contest the matter before the High Court and this court. The needful be done in respect of other landowners within a period of six months. This direction has been given in exercise of the power vested in this court under Art.142 of the Constitution."

On due consideration, looking to the entire facts and submission, this court is of the considered view that the appellants have satisfactorily explained the delay caused in filing the instant MAC. Consequently, IA No. 1 of 2016 is hereby allowed and the delay of 621 days in filing the instant MAC is hereby condoned.

Heard on admission. Also the matter heard finally with the consent of parties present at the motion stage itself.

2