- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition v. K.V. Ayisumma
Factual and Procedural Background
The case concerns land acquired for a public purpose. The reference court, by an award and decree dated 31-3-1989, enhanced the compensation payable. On 29-7-1991 the appellant filed a review application challenging that award, but the application was out of time. The Subordinate Judge condoned the delay. The respondent challenged the condonation by filing Civil Revision Petition No. 695 of 1992 in the High Court of Kerala, which on 27-7-1992 set aside the Subordinate Judge’s order. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court by special leave, resulting in the present decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Subordinate Judge was justified in condoning the delay in filing the review application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court observed that delays in governmental litigation often stem from bureaucratic procedures where officers have no personal stake and therefore act slowly. Requiring a strict, day-to-day explanation of such delays would, in the Court’s view, cause grave miscarriage of public justice and invite manipulation. Although Section 5 of the Limitation Act makes no distinction between the State and private citizens, the Court held that a pragmatic rather than pedantic approach is necessary when public interest is involved. Applying this standard, the Court found that the Subordinate Judge correctly condoned the delay without demanding an exhaustive explanation for each day’s default. Consequently, the High Court erred in overturning that order.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed; delay in filing the review application stands condoned. The matter is remitted to the reference court for disposal of the review petition on merits.
Immediate Effect: The review application will now be heard by the reference court. Broader Implications: The decision reinforces a pragmatic approach to condonation of delay in governmental matters, but it sets no new formal precedent because no specific earlier cases were discussed.
Order
1. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court of Kerala dated 27-7-1992 made in CRP No. 695 of 1992. The admitted facts are that in an acquisition of the land for public purpose, the reference court by its award and decree dated 31-3-1989 had enhanced the compensation. The appellant had filed an application on 29-7-1991 to review the award and decree. There was a delay in filing the application. The learned Subordinate Judge had condoned the delay. Against the said order of condoning the delay, the respondent had gone in revision to the High Court. The High Court in the impugned order set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge. Thus this appeal by special leave.
2. It is now settled law that when the delay was occasioned at the behest of the Government, it would be very difficult to explain the day-to-day delay. The transaction of the business of the Government was being done leisurely by officers who had no or evince no personal interest at different levels. No one takes personal responsibility in processing the matters expeditiously. As a fact at several stages, they take their own time to reach a decision. Even in spite of pointing at the delay, they do not take expeditious action for ultimate decision in filing the appeal. This case is one of such instances. It is true that Section 5 of the Limitation Act envisages explanation of the delay to the satisfaction of the court and in matters of Limitation Act made no distinction between the State and the citizen. Nonetheless adoption of strict standard of proof leads to grave miscarriage of public justice. It would result in public mischief by skilful management of delay in the process of filing the appeal. The approach of the Court should be pragmatic but not pedantic. Under those circumstances, the Subordinate Judge has rightly adopted correct approach and had condoned the delay without insisting upon explaining every day's delay in filing the review application in the light of the law laid down by this Court. The High Court was not right in setting aside the order. Delay was rightly condoned.
3. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The case is remitted to the reference court for disposal of the review petition in accordance with law. No costs.
Alert