TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Condonation of over ten year delay in appeal under Section 54 refused; later judgments or similar cases don't excuse</h1> <h3>Brijesh Kumar & Ors. Versus State of Haryana & Ors</h3> Condonation of over-ten-year delay in an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act was refused and the appeal decided against the appellants. ... Condonation of delay in appeal by more than 10 years - Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Some other persons filed appeal in time and also got a higher compensation - Held that:- In State of Karnataka & Ors. v. S.M. Kotrayya & Ors. [1996 (9) TMI 603 - SUPREME COURT], this Court rejected the contention that a petition should be considered ignoring the delay and laches on the ground that he filed the petition just after coming to know of the relief granted by the Court in a similar case as the same cannot furnish a proper explanation for delay and laches. The Court observed that such a plea is wholly unjustified and cannot furnish any ground for ignoring delay and laches. Same view has been reiterated by this Court in Jagdish Lal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. [1997 (5) TMI 423 - SUPREME COURT]. In M/s. Rup Diamonds & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.[1989 (1) TMI 217 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], this Court considered a case where petitioner wanted to get the relief on the basis of the judgment of this Court wherein a particular law had been declared ultra vires. The Court rejected the petition on the ground of delay and laches. - Decided against the appellants. Issues:1. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.Detailed Analysis:The petitioners challenged a judgment dismissing their Civil Misc. Applications for condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The land of the petitioners, along with others, was notified under Section 4 of the Act in 1993, and an award was made in 1997. The petitioners filed references for enhancement of compensation, and the Reference Court made an award in 2001. However, the petitioners filed the appeal in 2012 after a delay of more than 10 years. The High Court refused to condone the delay, leading to the petitions challenging this decision.The petitioners argued that the delay should have been condoned, and the High Court erred in not entertaining the appeal on its merits. The High Court, in rejecting the application for condonation of delay, relied on various judgments, including Mewa Ram v. State of Haryana, State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO, and D. Gopinathan Pillai v. State of Kerala. The Court examined the issues of limitation, delay, and laches, emphasizing the legal maxim 'Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit Finis Litium' and the purpose of limitation laws to ensure legal remedies are pursued within a legislatively fixed period.The Supreme Court referred to legal precedents to highlight the importance of adhering to limitation laws strictly. In cases like P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, the Court emphasized that limitations must be enforced rigorously as prescribed by statutes. Additionally, principles from cases like Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy were cited, emphasizing the significance of bona fides, reasonableness, and the conduct of parties in seeking condonation of delay.The Court reiterated that while courts should not adopt an injustice-oriented approach in rejecting applications for condonation of delay, sufficient cause is a prerequisite for exercising discretion in such matters. It was emphasized that delay and inordinate delay must be distinguished, and lack of bona fides or negligence can deprive a party of protection under the Limitation Act. The judgment highlighted that the conduct of parties and the balance of justice between them are crucial factors in deciding on condonation of delay.Ultimately, after considering the facts and legal principles, the Supreme Court found no fault with the High Court's decision to not condone the delay. Citing previous judgments, the Court concluded that the petitions lacked merit and dismissed them accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
