2025 (4) TMI 1750 - SC - Indian Laws

Land acquisition compensation appeal delays due to lawyer's non-filing despite instructions; delay condoned and cases remanded for rehearing.

The dominant issue was whether the HC erred in refusing to condone delay in land acquisition compensation appeals where the claimant had instructed filing ... Condonation of delay in preferring the appeals before the High Court - refusal to condone the delay in the present lis which concerns compensation for land acquired by the State for public purposes - HELD THAT:- The approach to be adopted in considering whether or not to condone the delay in filing an appeal has been discussed by this Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anand Nag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors.[1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT], wherein it has been observed that 'Making a justice-oriented approach from this perspective, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of the appeal.' In Executive Engineer, Nimna Dudhna Project Selu, District Parbhani, Maharashtra v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [2020 (1) TMI 1745 - SUPREME COURT], this Court held that the Body acquiring land cannot be saddled with the liability of paying interest for the period of delay in preferring the appeals. The order of the High Court, which granted interest also for five and half years’ delay, was modified to such an extent that interest shall not be payable for delay. Thus, the delay ought to have been condoned, since the position that the land loser had, in fact, asked for the appeal to be filed but it was not, for no fault of his, is an uncontroverted position of fact - The impugned judgment and orders are set aside and the matters are remanded to the High Court for consideration afresh, on all aspects, save and except delay. Appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues: Whether the delay in preferring appeals against the Reference Court's award in land acquisition proceedings ought to be condoned.Analysis: The applicable legal framework requires a liberal, justice-oriented approach to applications for condonation of delay, recognising that refusal to condone delay can bar meritorious claims at the threshold. Relevant principles include that every day's delay must be explained in a pragmatic manner, that there is no presumption of mala fides from delay, and that equities between land losers and acquiring authorities must be balanced to avoid unjust deprivation. Precedents demonstrate condonation of substantial delays in compulsory acquisition matters where claimants show sufficient cause, while ensuring that acquiring authorities are not prejudiced by being saddled with liability for interest during the period of delay. The material facts show an uncontroverted position that the appellant had requested initiation of an appeal but it was not filed due to no fault of the appellant; the High Court did not address this ground while refusing condonation. The appropriate relief balances entitlement to adjudication on merits with protection of acquiring authorities by denying interest for the condoned period.Conclusion: Delay in filing the appeals is to be condoned and the appeals are to be remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration on all aspects other than delay; the appellants shall not be entitled to interest for the condoned period.