TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1859
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as "Reference Court", for short), whereby the Reference Court has partly allowed the claim petition filed by the appellant by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer ("LAO", for short) on 23.07.2001 to Rs.2,00,000/- from Rs.1,00,000/- in respect of tank fed land of the appellant bearing Sy.No.72/2 measuring 15 guntas situated at Basavana Ganguru Village, Holalluru Hobli of Shivamogga Taluk and District ("land in question", for short), which was acquired along with other lands for alignment of Upper Tunga canal. 3. The abridged facts of the case are as under: The appellant was the owner of land in question. The said land was acquired for aligment of Upper Tunga canal by the respondents. Thereupon, the proceedings under the Act were initiated and notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 11.09.1997 and the possession of land was taken on 19.12.2000. Thereafter, the LAO has passed the award on 23.07.2001 awarding a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre for tank fed land. Being aggrieved by the said award, the appellant filed an application to refer her matter for reference under Section 18 of the Act for fixation of reasonable market value for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ys. 9. To buttress his argument, he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of AJAY DABRA Vs. PYARE RAM AND OTHERS reported in 2023 SCC ONLINE SC 92, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that insufficient fund to pay the court fee on time is not a ground to condone the delay. 10. Learned counsel also contended that the Reference Court, after considering the evidence, facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly fixed the market value for the tank fed land. The said award was not challenged by the respondents. However, the appellant challenged the said award, nearly after lapse of 11 years, that too after this Court has enhanced the compensation in MFA.No.5782/2015 arising out of connected matter i.e., LAC.No.57/2001. In such circumstances, the parity cannot be extended to the claim of the appellant. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal both on merits as well as on the ground of delay and laches. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having carefully perused the impugned judgment and also evidence and documents made available before us, the points that arise for consideration are: (i) Whether the inordin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rejected. Delay and laches cannot be raised in a case of a continuing cause of action, or if the circumstances shock the judicial conscience of the court. Condonation of delay is a matter of judicial discretion, which must be exercised judiciously and reasonably in the facts and circumstances of a case. It will depend upon the breach of fundamental rights, and the remedy claimed, and when and how the delay arose. There is no period of limitation prescribed for the courts to exercise their constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justice. 12.13. In a case where the demand for justice is so compelling, a constitutional court would exercise its jurisdiction with a view to promote justice, and not defeat it. [P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N., (1975) 1 SCC 152 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 22]" 48. The aforesaid view has also been reiterated by this Court in Sukh Dutt Ratra v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (2022) 7 SCC 508 wherein the court opined that there cannot be a `limitation' to doing justice. The relevant observations are reproduced below: "16. Given the important protection extended to an individual vis-a-vis their private property (embodied ea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion, and there is no inviolable rule that whenever there is delay, the Court must necessarily refuse to entertain the petition. Each case must depend on its own facts. The question, as pointed out by Hidayatullah, C.J., in Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi [(1969) 1 SCC 110, 116: (1969) 2 SCR 824] "is one of discretion for this Court to follow from case to case. There is no lower limit and there is no upper limit .... It will all depend on what the breach of the fundamental right and the remedy claimed are and how the delay arose". ... [ SCC para 11] ... " 51. The decisions of this Court have consistently held that the right to property is enshrined in the Constitution and requires that procedural safeguards be followed to ensure fairness and non- arbitrariness in decision-making especially in cases of acquisition by the State. Therefore, the delay in approaching the court, while a significant factor, cannot override the necessity to address illegalities and protect right to property enshrined in Article 300A. The court must balance the need for finality in legal proceedings with the need to rectify injustice. The ri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....act that the judgment rendered in MA No.12/2008 which was upheld in MSA 33-41/2011, the market value of the land was assessed in respect of a residential plot. However, the aforesaid market value fixed in respect of the residential plot has been made the basis for fixation of the market value in respect of agricultural lands in LAC no.109/2003 and LAC No.102/2003 decided on 03.02.2011 and 19.02.2011. The aforesaid judgments have not been challenged by the beneficiary viz., 10 respondent No.2 and the amount of compensation have been paid to the land owners. Therefore, in the peculiar fact situation of the case, the respondent No.2 is precluded from contending that the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of the judgment rendered by reference court in LAC Nos.109/2003 and 102/2003. It is elementary rule of law that a litigant cannot be permitted to assume inconsistent positions in the Court, to play fast and loose, to blow hot and cold, to approbate and reprobate to the detriment of the opponent. This wholesome doctrine applies not only to successive stages of the same proceeding but also to another proceeding other than the one in which the position was taken up provided that ....