Case Note & Summary
The appeal by special leave arose from an order of the High Court of Kerala dated July 27, 1992 in CRP No.695/92. The parties were the Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, Kerala (appellant/State) and K.V. Ayisumma (respondent/landowner). The case arose out of land acquisition for public purpose where the reference court enhanced compensation. The reference Court by its award and decree dated March 31, 1989 had enhanced the compensation. The appellant filed an application on July 29, 1991 to review the award and decree. There was delay in filing the application. The learned subordinate judge had condoned the delay. Against the said order of condoning the delay, the respondent went in revision to the High Court. The High Court set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge. Thus, the appellant filed the appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the Subordinate Judge's order condoning delay, particularly when the delay was on account of government processes. The appellant contended that day-to-day delay cannot be explained due to leisurely functioning of government departments and that the Subordinate Judge rightly condoned the delay. The respondent supported the High Court's order. The Supreme Court observed that when delay is occasioned at the behest of the Government, it is very difficult to explain day-to-day delay because the transaction of business is done leisurely by officers who have no personal interest at different levels. No one takes personal responsibility in processing matters expeditiously, and at several stages they take their own time to reach a decision. Even when delay is pointed out, they do not take expeditious action for ultimate decision in filing the appeal. The Court noted that Section 5 of the Limitation Act envisages explanation of the delay to the satisfaction of the Court and makes no distinction between the State and the citizen. Nonetheless, adoption of strict standard of proof leads to grave miscarriage of public justice and 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. The Supreme Court held that the Subordinate Judge had rightly adopted the correct approach and had condoned the delay without insisting upon explaining every day's delay in filing the review application. The High Court was not right in setting aside the order. The appeal was accordingly allowed, the case was remitted to the reference Court for disposal of the review petition in accordance with law, and no costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Limitation Law - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 - Government Delay - In land acquisition compensation enhancement, the State filed review petition with delay; Subordinate Judge condoned delay but High Court set aside, insisting on explanation of day-to-day delay; Supreme Court held that when delay is occasioned at the behest of the Government, courts should adopt a pragmatic, not pedantic, approach, and that strict standard of proof leads to grave miscarriage of public justice and public mischief; Subordinate Judge rightly condoned delay without requiring explanation of every day's delay; appeal allowed and case remitted to reference court (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the Subordinate Judge's order condoning delay in filing a review petition by the State in a land acquisition matter, given the leisurely functioning of government departments.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; order of High Court set aside; Subordinate Judge's order condoning delay restored; case remitted to reference Court for disposal of review petition in accordance with law; no costs.
Law Points
- When delay is occasioned at the behest of the Government
- it is difficult to explain day-to-day delay
- Section 5 of the Limitation Act
- 1963 makes no distinction between State and citizen but strict standard of proof leads to grave miscarriage of public justice
- courts should adopt a pragmatic
- not pedantic
- approach in condonation of delay
- public mischief may result from skilful management of delay in filing appeals
- subordinate court need not insist on explaining every day's delay where government machinery is leisurely.
