Back
M.P. Thakkar, B.C. Ray, JJ
Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag – Appellant
Versus
Katiji – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 460 of 1987
Key Points: - The Court discusses condonation of delay under Indian Limitation Act, 1963 s.5 and the liberal approach to substantial justice (!) (!) (!) - (!) . - It holds that the State as a litigant is entitled to the same consideration as private parties in applying the "sufficient cause" test (!) - (!) (!) - (!) . - It orders condonation of delay and remittance to the High Court for disposal on merits, emphasizing an equitable, justice-oriented approach (!) - (!) (!) - (!) . - The judgment states that delay in instituting appeals can be condoned to decide merits, rather than bar the matter outright (!) - (!) (!) - (!) . - It reflects that the expression "sufficient cause" is elastic and should subserve ends of justice (!) - (!) (!) - (!) . - The State’s involvement does not warrant a stepmotherly treatment in condonation of delay (!) - (!) . - It emphasizes that delay should be interpreted with rational, common-sense principles rather than pedantic strictness (!) - (!) . - The High Court’s decision to dismiss as time-barred is set aside; delay is condoned and appeal remitted for merits (!) - (!) . - No costs awarded on appeal; appeal allowed (!) - (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the 'sufficient cause' test in the context of a state appeal against land compensation enhancement. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. the interpretation of 'sufficient cause' under section 5 of the limitation act should be liberal and justice-oriented over technicalities. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. the state is entitled to the same equitable treatment as private litigants regarding condonation of delay. (Para 5) |
| 4. condonation of delay granted and matter remitted to high court for disposal on merits. (Para 6) |
ACT:
Indian Limitation Act, 1963 ; s.5--Condoning delay in filing appeal--Existence of ’sufficient cause’--Determination of--State seeking condonation of delay----To be treated equitably.
HEADNOTE:
An appeal by the State against a decision enhancing compensation in respect of acquisition of lands for a public purpose, raising important questions as regards principles of valuation, was dismissed by the High Court as time barred, being four days beyond time, by rejecting an application for condonation of delay.
The State appealed to this Court by special leave.
Allowing the appeal,
HLED: 1.1 The expression ’sufficient cause’ employed by the legislature in s.5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on merits. [388E-F]
1.2 The State which represents the collective cause of the community, does not deserve a litigant-non-grata status. The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants, including the State as a litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an equitable manner. The Courts, therefore, have to be informed with the spirit and philosophy of the provision in the course of the interpretation of the expression ’sufficient cause’. So also the same approach has to be evidenced in its application to matters at hand with the end in view to do even handed justice on merits in preference to the approach which scuttles a decision on merits. [390B-C]
2. In the instant case, sufficient cause exists for delay in instituting the appeal in the High Court. Delay is, therefore, condoned. The matter is remitted to the High Court for disposal on merits. [390C-D]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 460 of 1987.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.4. 1986 of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court in Civil 1st Appeal No. 54 of 1985.
Altar Anjad, Adv. General and S.K. Bhattacharya for the Appellants.
S.M. Aquil and Shakeel Ahmed for the Respondents.
The Order of the Court was delivered by THAKKAR, J.
To condone, or not to condone, is not the only question. Whether or not to apply the same standard in applying the "sufficient cause" test to all the litigants regardless of their personality in the said context is another.
An appeal preferred by the State of Jammu & Kashmir arising out of a decision enhancing compensation in respect of acquisition of lands for a public purpose to the extent of nearly 14 lakhs rupees by making an upward revision of the order of 800% (from Rs. 1000 per kanal to Rs.8000 per kanal) which also raised important questions as regards principles of valuation was dismissed as time barred being 4 days beyond time by rejecting an application for condonation of delay. Hence this appeal by special leave.
The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 51 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on ’merits’. The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice--that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other Co
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
