Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Delayed Appeal in Land Acquisition Case: Pathapati Subba Reddy vs. Special Deputy Collector (2024)

Date of the Judgment: April 8, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 286

Judges: Bela M. Trivedi, J., Pankaj Mithal, J.

Can a court condone an inordinate delay in filing an appeal, even if the delay is not properly explained? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning a land acquisition dispute. The Court examined whether a delay of 5659 days in filing an appeal could be excused, emphasizing the importance of adhering to limitation laws while also considering the principles of justice. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal, with the opinion authored by Justice Pankaj Mithal.

Case Background

In 1989, the government acquired land in Gandluru village, Guntur district, Andhra Pradesh, for the Telugu Ganga Project. Sixteen claimants, dissatisfied with the compensation, filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. During the proceedings before the Court of Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, three claimants (1, 3, and 11) died. No steps were taken to substitute their legal heirs. On September 24, 1999, the reference was dismissed, upholding the collector’s award.

More than five years later, some heirs of deceased claimant No. 11, Pathapati Subba Reddy, sought to appeal the dismissal. No other claimants or their heirs joined this appeal. The appeal was filed with a delay of 5659 days. The appellants claimed they were unaware of the proceedings until May 28, 2015, when a grandson visited the Land Acquisition Office for a submergence certificate. The High Court refused to condone the delay, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The claimants, dissatisfied with the compensation offered, filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The reference was dismissed by the Court of Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, on September 24, 1999. An appeal was filed in the High Court with a delay of 5659 days. The High Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay, leading to the present Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the Limitation Act, specifically Section 3 and Section 5.
✓ Section 3 of the Limitation Act: This section mandates the dismissal of any suit, appeal, or application filed after the prescribed period of limitation, even if the limitation is not raised as a defense. As per the judgment, “Subject to the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence.”
✓ Section 5 of the Limitation Act: This section provides an exception, empowering courts to condone delays if the appellant shows “sufficient cause” for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time. The court observed that, “the courts are conferred with discretionary powers to admit an appeal even after the expiry of the prescribed period provided the proposed appellant is able to establish ‘sufficient cause’ for not filing it within time.”

The court also emphasized that while Section 5 should be construed liberally, Section 3, being a substantive law, must be interpreted strictly. The court noted that the law of limitation is based on public policy, aiming to end litigation and ensure that rights not exercised within a reasonable time cease to exist.

Arguments

Petitioners’ (Appellants’) Arguments:

• The petitioners argued that the delay should be condoned because they were unaware of the proceedings. They claimed that the daughter of the deceased claimant No. 11 was living in her matrimonial home and only learned about the dismissal of the reference on May 28, 2015, when her grandson visited the L.A.O.
• The petitioners relied on previous Supreme Court decisions where delays were condoned in similar land acquisition cases, particularly where other claimants had received enhanced compensation. They cited the cases of Dhiraj Singh (Dead) through Legal Representatives & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. and Imrat Lal & Ors. vs. Land Acquisition Collector & Ors.
• The petitioners contended that the delay was not intentional, and the court should adopt a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the delay of 5659 days was inordinate and not sufficiently explained. They emphasized that the law of limitation, as enshrined in Section 3 of the Limitation Act, mandates the dismissal of appeals filed beyond the prescribed period.
• The respondent contended that the High Court was justified in refusing to condone the delay, as the petitioners had not demonstrated due diligence in pursuing the matter. The respondent also pointed out that most of the other claimants had accepted the decision of the reference court.
• The respondent argued that the discretionary power to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should not be exercised when there is negligence or lack of bona fides.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The moot question before the Supreme Court was:

1. 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.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Court reiterated the principles laid down in Bhag Mal alias Ram Bux and Ors. vs. Munshi (Dead) by LRs. and Ors. (2007) 11 SCC 285 that Section 3 of the Limitation Act has to be construed strictly whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally.
• The Court referred to Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Ors. vs. Katiji and Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107 = AIR 1987 SC 1353 to highlight the liberal approach to condone delays, but emphasized that this approach cannot override the substantial law of limitation.
• The Court cited Ramlal, Motilal And Chhotelal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd A.I.R. 1962 SC 361 to emphasize that condonation of delay is a discretionary power even if sufficient cause is shown.
• The Court relied on Maqbul Ahmad and Ors. vs. Onkar Pratap Narain Singh and Ors. A.I.R. 1935 PC 85 to reiterate that courts cannot grant exemption from limitation on equitable grounds.
• The Court referred to Brijesh Kumar and Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Ors. 2014 (4) SCALE 50 to state that those who approach the court belatedly cannot benefit from relief granted to those who approached the court in time.
• The Court relied on Lanka Venkateswarlu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 363 to reiterate that a liberal approach should not override the substantial law of limitation.
• The Court referred to State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Ashok Kumar Chokhani & Ors. AIR 2009 SC 1927 to clarify that merits of the case cannot be considered while condoning delay.
• The Court relied on Basawaraj and Anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81 to emphasize that the discretion to condone delay must be exercised judiciously and not liberally if there is negligence or lack of bona fides.
• The Court distinguished the cases of Dhiraj Singh (Dead) through Legal Representatives & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2014) 14 SCC 127 and Imrat Lal & Ors. vs. Land Acquisition Collector & Ors. (2014) 14 SCC 133 stating that imposition of conditions are not warranted when sufficient cause has not been shown for condoning the delay.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principles of limitation law and the need for diligence in pursuing legal remedies. The Court emphasized that while a liberal approach is generally adopted in considering applications for condonation of delay, this cannot be at the expense of the law of limitation. The Court observed that the petitioners’ delay of 5659 days was inordinate, and their explanation was insufficient to justify condonation. The court also highlighted that most of the other claimants had accepted the decision of the reference court, indicating a lack of due diligence on the part of the petitioners. The Court also reiterated that the merits of the case cannot be considered while dealing with an application for condonation of delay. The Court’s reasoning was also influenced by the need to maintain the integrity of the legal process and to ensure that stale matters are not revived after a long period.

Key Takeaways

• Inordinate Delay: Courts are unlikely to condone extremely long delays in filing appeals, especially when the reasons are not compelling.
• Due Diligence: Litigants must be proactive and diligent in pursuing their cases. Ignorance of proceedings is generally not a sufficient excuse for delays.
• Limitation Law: The law of limitation is strictly enforced, and exceptions are only made in cases of sufficient cause.
• Discretionary Power: The power to condone delays is discretionary and is not exercised liberally in cases of negligence.
• Precedent: Each case is decided on its own facts, and the grant of relief in similar cases does not automatically entitle others to the same benefit.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the delay of 5659 days in filing the appeal was inordinate and not sufficiently explained, and that the petitioners did not demonstrate due diligence in pursuing the matter. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to refuse to condone the delay. This case reinforces the importance of adhering to limitation laws and the need for diligence in pursuing legal remedies. It also clarifies that the discretionary power to condone delays under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not to be exercised liberally in cases of negligence or lack of bona fides. This judgment reaffirms the position of law that the law of limitation is to be applied strictly.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, upholding the High Court’s decision to refuse condonation of a 5659-day delay in filing an appeal. The Court emphasized that the law of limitation is based on public policy and that inordinate delays cannot be excused without sufficient cause and due diligence. This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to prescribed timelines in legal proceedings and highlights the limits of the court’s discretionary power to condone delays.