PATHAPATI SUBBA REDDY (DIED) BY L.Rs. & ORS. Vs. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA)

CITATION	2024 SCC ONLINE SC 286
DATE OF JUDGEMENT	08 April 2024
COURT	Supreme Court of India
PETITIONERS	PATHAPATI SUBBA REDDY (DIED)BY L.Rs. & ORS.
DEFENDANT	THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA)
BENCH	Justice BELA M. TRIVEDI and Justice PANKAJ MITHAL

INTRODUCTION

This case involves a land acquisition dispute in village Gandluru, District Gantur, Andhra Pradesh, related to the Telugu Ganga Project. The dispute arose when 16 claimants were unsatisfied with the compensation offered, leading to a reference filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (L.A.A.). Out of 16 claimants, the second surviving daughter (legal heirs and representatives) of claimant No. 11, Pathapati Subba Reddy (who died), filed an appeal to revert the decision of the reference, which was dismissed on September 24, 1999.

The High Court dismissed the petitioners’ application to condone a 5659-day delay in filing the proposed appeal. The decision was based on negligence and a lack of procedural review. This case was initially filed as a Special Leave Petition by the petitioners to challenge the High Court’s decision to dismiss the proposed appeal. The judgement date of this case is April 8, 2024. The petitioner’s contentions, the judgments passed, and the reasoning behind them are the essence of this case.

In analyzing the compulsory nature of Section 3 and the liberal approach of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Supreme Court underscores the significance of demonstrating a “sufficient cause” to justify condoning delays in filing an appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision to refuse to condone the delay and dismissed the Special Leave Petition due to lack of merit. 

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. After a significant period, more than 5 or 6 years later, an appeal was planned to be filed in the high court under section 54 of the L.O.A. This appeal aimed to challenge the dismissal of the reference made on 24.09.1999
2. Out of the original 16 claimants, only those associated with claimant No. 11 showed interest in challenging the previous decision of reference, while the rest did not take any action or file separate appeals.
3. The appeal, delayed by 5659 days, was supported by the surviving daughter of deceased claimant No. 11. Discovered in 2015 during a visit to the L.O.A. office, the delay was due to a reference dismissal in 1999. The appeal was promptly filed with a request to excuse the delay.
4. The High Court declined to condone the delay in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time bar and dismissed it as time-barred in the order dated 18.01.2017.
5. The petitioners questioned the High Court’s decision to dismiss the appeal as barred by limitation, which involves a dispute regarding the condonation of delay in filing an appeal.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned based on factors such as lack of negligence, absence of sufficient cause, and lack of due diligence.
2. Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the request to condone the delay in filing the appeal as time-barred. 
3. Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the request to condone the delay in filing an appeal based on the case’s facts and circumstances.
4. Those who are entitled to relief make it available for others to avail themselves of the same relief in the same matter.
5. Is it necessary to exercise the court’s discretionary power in favor of condoning the delay without finding sufficient cause behind the delay in filing an appeal?

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court of India upheld the decision of the High Court in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as barred by limitation.

The judgment was based on valid reasons laid down as follows: (i)  The claimants were negligent in pursuing the reference and filing the proposed appeal; (ii) most claimants accept the reference court’s decision; (iii) if the petitioners had not been included as parties to the reference before its decision, they could have sought procedural review, but they did not; and (iv) a lack of due diligence on the part of the petitioners in pursuing the matter.

The Court emphasized the importance of adherence to the law of limitation and the need for sufficient cause to justify the condonation of delay in legal proceedings. The court advocates that reviving dead matters cannot be used in the context of phrases “liberal approach” and “ justice-oriented” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and found a lack of merit in the Special Leave Petition from the side of petitioners in filing an appeal with a timeframe and finally dismissed it. 

REASONING

In this case, the Supreme Court laid down the principles and made it evident that:

1. The law of limitation is rooted in the public policy of concluding litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy, rather than the right itself.

2.  Rights or remedies unused for long periods should cease to exist after a fixed timeframe.

3. The interpretation of the Limitation Act makes it necessary to follow a strict approach for Section 3 and a lenient approach for Section 5.

4. The court laid down that to promote substantial justice,  factors like a liberal and justice-oriented approach are considered, but they cannot supersede the crucial limitations set by Section 3 of the Limitation Act.

5. The court considered that it has the discretion to condone delay if a sufficient cause is provided. However, this discretion is not guaranteed, especially in cases of excessive delay, negligence, and lack of due diligence, even when sufficient cause is established.

6. The court has shown that just because some individuals received relief in a similar matter does not guarantee the same benefit for them if the court is not satisfied by the justification for the appeals’s filing delay.

7. The court again considered that the request to condone the delay must follow prescribed parameters, and excusing delay without following these parameters disregards the statutory provision.

ANALYSIS

Condoning the delay to file an appeal depends on facts and circumstances that vary from case to case. The fact that the other claimant accepted the decision and the petitioners were the only (claimant No. 11) among the other 16 claimants who filed an appeal to revert the decision of reference in the High Court should not be considered underrated. 

In the light of public policy, the object behind the Limitation Act is to examine and hit a balance between Section 3 and Section 5 in the matters of condoning the delay. Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Ors. vs.Katiji and Ors. case provides clarity that a liberal approach to condoning delay should exist, but there must be a “ sufficient cause” to take advantage under Section 5 for not filing the appeal in time. 

Negligence, lack of merit, due diligence, lack of sufficient cause, and procedural overview as the grounds for rejecting the petitioner’s request to condone the delay in filing an appeal were significant considerations. 

It is important to note that just because some individuals obtained relief in the same matter, it does not mean others are also entitled to the same relief. The court cannot extend time limits based on fairness or sympathy alone. A convincing explanation is needed to condone the delay.

This establishes a potential precedent that the facts and circumstances of each case are significant enough to justify the condoned delay in filing an appeal and to dismiss it as time-barred as well as for concluding litigation to the effect that if any right or remedy is not availed of for a long time, it ceases to exist. It is for the general welfare not to keep any litigation or dispute pending indefinitely. The determination of what qualifies as  “sufficient cause” can vary based on the facts and circumstances of each case and is also subject to the discretion of the courts. 

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court favors the High Court’s decision, as it justified refusing to condone the delay and dismissed the Special Leave Petition based on a lack of merits. The court’s interpretation of condoning the delay in filing an appeal after a prolonged period emphasizing the liberal approach under Section 5 is subject to sufficient cause. The justification for  “sufficient cause” depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, which plays a vital role in delay condonation. 

This case highlights the importance of adhering to legal timelines and ensuring the timely disposition of cases is taken to avoid cessation of rights and remedies available to the public. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision and signified the importance of following the Limitation Law and the need for valid justification to explain the condoning delays. 

The court also observed that ‘lenient approach’, ‘justice-oriented approach’, and justice cannot be used to ignore the strict rules about the substantial law of limitation. The specific details of each case are crucial in deciding if it is good to excuse a delay, guided by the court’s judgement respecting fairness and legal rules set by the law.

REFERENCES

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/115839893/
2.  https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/14596/14596_2017_15_1502_52056_Judgement_08-Apr-2024.pdf
3. https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=17468

This Article is written by SARIKA GUPTA student of A. M. College, Mathura(AMCM); Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.