Can a delay of 3671 days in filing an appeal be condoned? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a land acquisition case. The Court considered whether the High Court was right in dismissing the appeal due to the delay and also looked into the adequacy of compensation for fruit-bearing trees.
This judgment, delivered by a two-judge bench of Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice R. Banumathi, allows the appeal partly and enhances the compensation for the trees while denying interest for the period of delay.
Case Background
On October 1, 1990, the government issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to acquire 32.77 acres of land in Nellepalli village for the Kandaleru Reservoir under the Telugu Ganga Project. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) passed an award on January 30, 1992, fixing compensation for cultivable dry land at Rs. 9,000 per acre and cultivable waste land at Rs. 7,000 per acre. Additionally, the LAO awarded compensation for lime trees (Rs. 50-70 each) and pomegranate trees (Rs. 32 each). The land was taken into possession on March 2, 1994, and compensation was paid to the landowners.
Dissatisfied with the compensation, the landowners sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to the Senior Civil Judge, Gudur. The Reference Court enhanced the land value to Rs. 12,000 per acre for cultivable dry land and Rs. 10,000 per acre for cultivable waste land on August 6, 2004. It also increased the compensation for trees to Rs. 100 per tree, while confirming the rate of Rs. 32 per pomegranate tree.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| October 1, 1990 | Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 issued. |
| January 30, 1992 | Land Acquisition Officer passed the award. |
| March 2, 1994 | Possession of the land taken and compensation paid. |
| August 6, 2004 | Reference Court enhanced the market value of land and trees. |
| March 1, 2013 | Order in A.S. No.1749/2004, referred to by the appellants. |
| July 12, 2016 | High Court dismissed the appeal due to a delay of 3671 days. |
| November 29, 2016 | Supreme Court decision in Civil Appeal Nos.11404-405 of 2016, relied upon by the appellants. |
| July 19, 2017 | Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal. |
Course of Proceedings
The appellants, dissatisfied with the enhanced compensation awarded by the Reference Court, approached the High Court. They cited a previous order in A.S. No.1749/2004 dated March 1, 2013, and other judgments of the High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh. However, there was a delay of 3671 days in filing the appeal. The High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay. The High Court was of the view that the delay was not due to a bona fide mistake, but to make gain basing on the assessment of value of pomegranate trees in the decisions of Peddireddy Madhava Reddy and Pidugu Seshugari Lakshmi Devi.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around Section 4(1) and Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, deals with the publication of a preliminary notification for the acquisition of land for public purposes.
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, allows a person who has not accepted the award to seek a reference to the court for determination of the compensation.
Arguments
The appellants argued that the High Court should have condoned the delay, as they had provided a satisfactory explanation. They stated that they had entrusted the case to a co-villager who misled them into believing that the appeal was filed. They also relied on a similar case, L.A.S.S.No.46/2015, where the High Court condoned a delay of 3386 days, subject to the condition that interest would not be granted for the delay period. The appellants also sought compensation of Rs. 3,000 per pomegranate tree, citing a Supreme Court decision in Civil Appeal Nos. 11404-405 of 2016.
The respondent argued that the delay was not satisfactorily explained. They contended that the High Court rightly exercised its discretion in declining to condone the delay. They further argued that the compensation awarded in Civil Appeal Nos.11404-11405 of 2016, which related to the Somashila Project, could not be applied to this case.
| Appellants’ Submissions | Respondent’s Submissions |
|---|---|
| ✓ Satisfactory explanation for the delay was provided. | ✓ Reason for delay was not satisfactorily explained. |
| ✓ Entrusted case to a co-villager who misled them. | ✓ High Court rightly exercised its discretion in declining to condone the delay. |
| ✓ Relied on L.A.S.S.No.46/2015 where delay was condoned. | ✓ Compensation awarded in Civil Appeal Nos.11404-11405 of 2016 cannot be applied to this case. |
| ✓ Sought compensation of Rs. 3,000 per pomegranate tree. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issues:
- Whether the High Court was right in dismissing the appeal due to the delay of 3671 days?
- Whether the compensation awarded for the pomegranate and lime trees was adequate?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was right in dismissing the appeal due to the delay of 3671 days? | The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not right in dismissing the appeal and condoned the delay subject to the condition that the appellants would not be entitled to interest for the period of delay. |
| Whether the compensation awarded for the pomegranate and lime trees was adequate? | The Supreme Court enhanced the compensation for pomegranate trees to Rs. 1,500 per tree and for lime trees to Rs. 250 per tree. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | How it was Considered | Court |
|---|---|---|
| State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO and Others (2005) 3 SCC 752 | The Supreme Court relied on this case to emphasize a liberal interpretation of “sufficient cause” for condoning delays. | Supreme Court of India |
| Dhiraj Singh (D) Thr. Lrs. Etc. Etc. v. Haryana State and Ors. Etc. Etc. 2014 (9) SCALE 441 | The Court cited this case to highlight that substantive rights should not be defeated on technical grounds and a pragmatic approach should be adopted in land acquisition compensation matters. | Supreme Court of India |
| Kerala State Electricity Board v. Livisha and Ors. (2007) 6 SCC 792 | The Court referred to this case to reiterate that compensation for fruit-bearing trees depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. | Supreme Court of India |
| Land Acquisition Officer v. Kamandana Ramakrishna Rao AIR 2007 SC 1142 | This case was referred to in the context of determining compensation on a yield basis for fruit-bearing trees. | Supreme Court of India |
| Kapur Singh Mistry v. Financial Commission and Revenue Secretary to Govt. of Punjab and Ors. | This case was cited to support the principle of yield basis for determining compensation. | Supreme Court of India |
| State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. [1995] 1 SCR 408 | This case was also cited to support the principle of yield basis for determining compensation. | Supreme Court of India |
| Airports Authority of India v. Satyagopal Roy [2002] 2 SCR 505 | This case was cited to support the principle of yield basis for determining compensation. | Supreme Court of India |
| Shaik Imambi v. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisiton), Telugu Ganga Project (2011) 11 SCC 639 | The Court applied the ratio of this decision to determine the annual income from lime trees. | Supreme Court of India |
Judgment
| Party | Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Appellants | Satisfactory explanation for the delay was provided. | Accepted, delay condoned subject to no interest for the delay period. |
| Appellants | Entrusted case to a co-villager who misled them. | Accepted as a valid reason for the delay. |
| Appellants | Relied on L.A.S.S.No.46/2015 where delay was condoned. | Accepted that a similar approach should have been adopted. |
| Appellants | Sought compensation of Rs. 3,000 per pomegranate tree. | Partially accepted, compensation enhanced to Rs. 1,500 per tree. |
| Respondent | Reason for delay was not satisfactorily explained. | Rejected, explanation was found satisfactory. |
| Respondent | High Court rightly exercised its discretion in declining to condone the delay. | Rejected, the Supreme Court found the High Court erred in its approach. |
| Respondent | Compensation awarded in Civil Appeal Nos.11404-11405 of 2016 cannot be applied to this case. | Partially accepted, compensation was not made applicable directly, but the principle was considered. |
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not right in dismissing the appeal due to the delay. The Court observed that the term “sufficient cause” should be construed liberally to advance substantial justice. The Court also noted that the appellants were agriculturists whose lands were acquired, and a pragmatic approach should be adopted to award just compensation.
Regarding the compensation for trees, the Court considered the cost of planting and raising fruit-bearing trees and the time elapsed since the initial award. The Court enhanced the compensation for pomegranate trees to Rs. 1,500 per tree and for lime trees to Rs. 250 per tree. The Court also directed that the appellants would be entitled to all statutory benefits but not interest for the period of delay.
The Supreme Court cited State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO and Others (2005) 3 SCC 752* to support the liberal interpretation of “sufficient cause” for condoning delays. It also relied on Dhiraj Singh (D) Thr. Lrs. Etc. Etc. v. Haryana State and Ors. Etc. Etc. 2014 (9) SCALE 441* to emphasize that substantive rights should not be defeated on technical grounds. The Court also considered Kerala State Electricity Board v. Livisha and Ors. (2007) 6 SCC 792*, Land Acquisition Officer v. Kamandana Ramakrishna Rao AIR 2007 SC 1142*, Kapur Singh Mistry v. Financial Commission and Revenue Secretary to Govt. of Punjab and Ors.*, State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. [1995] 1 SCR 408*, Airports Authority of India v. Satyagopal Roy [2002] 2 SCR 505* to determine compensation for fruit-bearing trees. The case of Shaik Imambi v. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisiton), Telugu Ganga Project (2011) 11 SCC 639* was used to determine the annual income of lime trees.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure substantial justice for the appellants, who were agriculturists whose lands were acquired. The Court emphasized that a pragmatic approach should be adopted in land acquisition cases, and technicalities should not be used to defeat substantive rights. The Court also took into account the fact that the appellants were misled by a co-villager, which led to the delay in filing the appeal. Additionally, the Court considered the cost of planting and raising fruit-bearing trees and the time elapsed since the initial award while enhancing the compensation.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Need to ensure substantial justice for agriculturists | 30% |
| Pragmatic approach in land acquisition cases | 25% |
| Technicalities should not defeat substantive rights | 20% |
| Appellants were misled by a co-villager | 15% |
| Cost of planting and raising fruit-bearing trees | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
Issue: Was the High Court correct in dismissing the appeal due to delay?
Court’s Consideration: Explanation for delay and principle of substantial justice
Court’s Decision: Delay condoned, appeal allowed
Issue: Was the compensation for trees adequate?
Court’s Consideration: Cost of planting, time elapsed
Court’s Decision: Compensation enhanced for pomegranate and lime trees
The court reasoned that the delay was due to the appellants being misled by a co-villager and that the High Court should have adopted a more liberal approach in condoning the delay. The court also noted that the compensation awarded for the trees was inadequate, considering the time and effort involved in raising them.
The Court quoted, “Section 5 is to be construed liberally so as to do substantial justice to the parties.” The Court further added, “In the matter of compensation for land acquisition, we are of the view that approach of the Court has to be pragmatic and not pedantic.” The Court also observed, “Planting, raising and making commercial use of fruit bearing trees is a painstaking affair and cost of the same is consistently on rise as the years are passing by which is to be kept in view.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Courts should adopt a liberal approach in condoning delays, especially in cases involving agriculturists.
- ✓ Substantive rights should not be defeated on technical grounds.
- ✓ A pragmatic approach should be adopted in land acquisition cases.
- ✓ Compensation for fruit-bearing trees should be determined based on the cost of planting, raising, and the time elapsed.
- ✓ Interest can be denied for the period of delay in condoning delays.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the appellants would not be entitled to any interest for the period of delay of 3671 days. The Court also directed that the enhanced compensation for the trees, along with all statutory benefits, should be paid to the appellants.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that courts should adopt a liberal approach in condoning delays, especially in cases involving agriculturists, and that substantive rights should not be defeated on technical grounds. Additionally, the compensation for fruit-bearing trees should be determined based on the cost of planting, raising, and the time elapsed. This case reinforces the principle that a pragmatic approach should be adopted in land acquisition cases.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, condoning the delay of 3671 days in filing the appeal and enhancing the compensation for pomegranate and lime trees. The Court emphasized the need for a liberal approach in condoning delays and a pragmatic approach in land acquisition cases. The Court also directed that the appellants would not be entitled to any interest for the period of delay.