Case Note & Summary
The appellant, R.G. Girijamma, was the claimant in L.A.C.No.237/2005 before the Senior Civil Judge, Harihar, seeking enhanced compensation for land acquired for the Upper Tunga Project. The Reference Court passed judgment and award on 09.01.2012, disposing of the reference petition. The appellant filed an appeal under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, challenging the award, but there was an inordinate delay of 2283 days in filing the appeal. The appellant filed I.A.No.1/2018 seeking condonation of this delay, supported by an affidavit stating that she was under the impression that the matter was still pending before the Reference Court. The respondents did not file objections despite service. The High Court heard the counsel for the appellant and the respondents. The court examined the application and found that the sole reason given was insufficient to explain such a long delay. The court noted that the appellant did not provide any details about when she became aware of the disposal or what steps she took thereafter. The court held that the explanation did not constitute 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and dismissed the application for condonation of delay. Consequently, the appeal was also dismissed as barred by limitation.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - Inordinate delay of 2283 days in filing appeal against award in land acquisition reference - Appellant claimed ignorance of disposal of reference petition - Held that the explanation was not sufficient to condone such huge delay, as the appellant failed to exercise due diligence - Appeal dismissed (Paras 2-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the inordinate delay of 2283 days in filing the appeal should be condoned when the only reason assigned is that the appellant was under the impression that the matter was pending before the Reference Court.
Final Decision
The application for condonation of delay (I.A.No.1/2018) is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal (M.F.A.No.6536/2018) is also dismissed as barred by limitation.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Sufficient cause
- Inordinate delay
- Limitation Act
- 1963
- Section 5
- Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- Section 18
- Section 54(1)
Case Details
2020 LawText (KAR) (02) 43
S.N.Satyanarayana, H.P.Sandesh
Sangamesh G. Patil (for appellant), Venkata Satyanarayan (HCGP for R1), Prashanth B.R. (for M.R.C. Ravi for R2)
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Tunga Project, Shimoga & The Executive Engineer, Upper Tunga Project, Shimoga, Karnataka Niravari Nigama
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against award in land acquisition reference seeking enhancement of compensation.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought condonation of delay of 2283 days in filing the appeal and enhancement of compensation awarded by the Reference Court.
Filing Reason
Appellant claimed she was under the impression that the matter was pending before the Reference Court and hence did not file the appeal in time.
Previous Decisions
The Reference Court (Senior Civil Judge, Harihar) passed judgment and award on 09.01.2012 in L.A.C.No.237/2005, disposing of the reference petition for compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Issues
Whether the inordinate delay of 2283 days in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that she was under the impression that the matter was still pending before the Reference Court, and therefore the delay occurred.
Respondents did not file objections to the delay condonation application.
Ratio Decidendi
The explanation that the appellant was under the impression that the matter was pending before the Reference Court does not constitute 'sufficient cause' for condoning an inordinate delay of 2283 days, as the appellant failed to exercise due diligence and did not provide any details regarding when she became aware of the disposal or what steps she took thereafter.
Judgment Excerpts
Admittedly, this appeal is filed with inordinate delay of 2283 days.
The one and only reason which is assigned by the appellant is that she was under the impression that the matter was pending before the Reference Court.
The explanation offered by the appellant is not sufficient to condone the inordinate delay of 2283 days.
Procedural History
The Reference Court (Senior Civil Judge, Harihar) passed judgment and award on 09.01.2012 in L.A.C.No.237/2005. The appellant filed an appeal under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, along with an application for condonation of delay (I.A.No.1/2018) on an unspecified date. The appeal was listed before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru on 06.02.2020, when the court heard the matter and dismissed the delay condonation application and the appeal.
Acts & Sections
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 18, Section 54(1)
- Limitation Act, 1963: Section 5
