The Supreme Court has explained some important points to be kept in mind regarding the law of limitation and condonation of delay.
The Court was deciding a Special Leave Petition (SLP) preferred by the legal representatives of a man in a land acquisition case.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal mentioned the following principles:
(i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself;
(ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time;
(iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally;
(iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act;
(v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence;
(vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal;
(vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and
(viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision.
Advocate Madurima Tatia appeared for the petitioners while AOR Santosh Krishnan appeared for the respondent.
Brief Facts –
A land in a village was acquired some time in 1989 for Telugu Ganga Project and not satisfied by the compensation offered under the award, the claimants preferred a reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Out of the 16 claimants in the reference, 3 claimants died during the pendency of the reference. No steps were taken to substitute the heirs and legal representatives of the said deceased persons. The reference was dismissed along with some other references vide a common judgment, upholding the award of the collector.
After the lapse of more than 5/6 years, an appeal was filed before the High Court, challenging the dismissal of the reference. Out of 16 claimants, 15 of them impliedly accepted the judgment and order of the reference court and it was only the heirs and legal representatives of the claimant no. 11 who felt aggrieved and filed the appeal. The appeal was preferred with the delay of 5659 days and accordingly, an application supported by an affidavit of the surviving daughter of the deceased claimant was filed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case observed, “The moot question before us is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court was justified in refusing to condone the delay in filing the proposed appeal and to dismiss it as barred by limitation. … delay is not liable to be condoned merely because some persons have been granted relief on the facts of their own case. Condonation of delay in such circumstances is in violation of the legislative intent or the express provision of the statute.”
The Court said that condoning of the delay merely for the reason that the claimants have been deprived of the interest for the delay without holding that they had made out a case for condoning the delay is not a correct approach.
“… it cannot be said that the facts or the reasons of getting the delay condoned are identical or similar. Therefore, we are unable to exercise our discretionary power of condoning the delay in filing the appeal on parity with the above order(s)”, it noted.
The Court further said that the High Court did not find it fit to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction of condoning the delay and hence, there is no need of interfering with the discretion exercised by the court.
“First, the claimants were negligent in pursuing the reference and then in filing the proposed appeal. Secondly, most of the claimants have accepted the decision of the reference court. Thirdly, in the event the petitioners have not been substituted and made party to the reference before its decision, they could have applied for procedural review which they never did”, it also noted.
The Court, therefore, concluded that there is no due diligence in pursuing the matter and that the High Court was justified in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the SLP and refused to interfere with the decision of the High Court.
Cause Title- Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs & Ors. v. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 286)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Madurima Tatia, V. Sridhar Reddy, AOR Abhijit Sengupta, and Advocate Rohit Jaiswal.
Respondent: AOR Santosh Krishnan, Advocates Girish Chowdhary, Sonam Anand, Deepshikha Sansanwal, S.L. Soujanya, and Shaik Mohammed Haneef.
Sources:
https://www.verdictum.in/amp/court-updates/supreme-court/pathapati-subba-reddy-v-the-special-deputy-collector-2024-insc-286-limitation-law-condonation-of-delay-1529760
for clarification call 9873004312
