Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Executive Engineer, Lower Terna Canal Division No. 2, Latur, an instrumentality of the State, filed three applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of delay in filing first appeals against the judgment and award dated 2 September 2015 passed by the Reference Court, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nilanga, District Latur. The Reference Court had enhanced compensation by a meagre amount of Rs. 7,926/- each in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 81/2013, 82/2013, and 83/2013. The land admeasuring 6 Are of each claimant was acquired long ago—notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued on 5 December 1990, possession was taken in 1998, and the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed award on 30 March 2002. The references were decided 12 to 13 years after the award. Despite the meagre enhancement, the acquiring body filed appeals after a delay of more than two years, attributing the delay to non-communication of the award by the Government Pleader, time taken to obtain copies, sanction from higher authorities, and arranging court fees. The respondent-claimants did not appear though served; the Assistant Government Pleader appeared for the State and highlighted the negligible amount involved. The applicant argued that the delay was not deliberate and was due to procedural lapses, including not being made a party to the reference. However, the record showed that the applicant was respondent No. 2 in the reference proceedings and was represented by an advocate, thus the claim of non-communication was false. The court examined the cause shown and found it vague, general, and contrary to record. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by L.Rs. v. Exe.Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project and Anr., (2008) 6 ALL MR 954, which held that the law of limitation is same for citizens and government authorities and that pursuing stale claims does not serve public interest, the court concluded that no sufficient cause was made out. It observed that the applicant’s conduct—making false averments, not depositing the compensation despite a conditional order, and challenging a negligible enhancement—disentitled it to the exercise of judicial discretion. The applications were rejected, the delay was not condoned, and consequently the appeals stood dismissed. No order as to costs was made.
Headnote
A) Limitation Law – Condonation of Delay – Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963 – The law of limitation applies equally to the State and its instrumentalities as to citizens; no different period is provided for Government authorities. While latitude may be allowed, it cannot be used to condone inordinate delay based on vague and general explanations, especially when settled rights of land losers are involved and prompt payment of compensation is a public policy imperative. Held that the cause assigned was insufficient and no case was made out to condone the delay (Paras 5-7). B) Civil Procedure – Exercise of Discretion – Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963 – Courts must examine the conduct of the applicant while exercising discretion. Where the applicant, though a party and represented in reference, made false averments about non-communication and failed to deposit compensation despite orders, and the enhancement sought to be challenged was meagre (Rs. 7,926/-), the conduct disentitled the applicant to condonation. Held, applications rejected, delay not condoned, appeals dismissed (Paras 7-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the delay of over two years in filing appeals by the acquiring body should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, given the meagre enhancement of compensation and the conduct of the applicant.
Final Decision
Applications for condonation of delay rejected; delay not condoned; appeals dismissed; no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Limitation Act applies equally to government authorities and citizens
- Courts may refuse to condone delay if explanation is false and concocted
- Pursuing stale claims not in public interest
- Section 5 of Limitation Act
- 1963
- No different limitation period for government under Limitation Act
- Judicial discretion not to condone delay when applicant's conduct disentitles
- Meagre enhancement of compensation not justifying appeal
