For the Telugu Ganges Project, some land in the Andhra Pradesh village of Gandluru, District Guntur, was purchased sometime in 1989. The sixteen plaintiffs preferred a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act because they were dissatisfied with the compensation provided under the award. Some of the claimants died during the pendency of the suit. There were no attempts to replace the heirs or legal representatives of the deceased individuals. Hence, the Petition was dismissed. After a gap of 5-6 years, an appeal was presented in the High Court challenging the dismissal. The proposed appeal was limited to the heirs and legal representatives of deceased claimant Pathapati Subba Reddy. The appeal was filed only by claimant’s heirs and legal representatives, with no participation from the other claimants.
A GLANCE AT THE BASICS:
1) The legal maxim “interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium” states that putting a time limit on litigation is beneficial to the common welfare. The goal is to halt all legal remedies and set a time limit for each case, as it is fruitless to continue a disagreement indefinitely. Public policy necessitates an end to litigation to avoid creating a conflict between the immortality of the litigation and the mortal nature of the persons involved.
2) Despite the fact that neither the opposing side nor the pleadings raise any objections to the limitation, Section 3 of the Act is peremptory and must be implemented. Stated differently, it imposes a duty on the court to reject an appeal that is filed beyond the deadline.
3) If the prospective appellant can show “sufficient cause” for not filing the appeal in a timely manner, the courts have the ability to accept the appeal even after the deadline has passed. The aforementioned discretionary power to excuse the delay or to accept the appeal filed after the deadline has passed may not be used, even in cases where there is sufficient justification based on a variety of other circumstances, including carelessness, a failure to employ reasonable diligence, etc.
REFERENCE TO SOME SIMILAR CASES:
In the case of Ramlal, Motilal, and Chhotelal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd3,1962 this Court emphasized that a party does not have the right to a delay condonation, even if the party has demonstrated sufficient cause for not filing an appeal within the allotted time. The court has the discretion to excuse the delay. Even when a “sufficient cause” has been established for a variety of reasons, the court may decide not to excuse the delay based on the party’s sincerity.
Also, Lanka Venkateswarlu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.6, this Court determined that the High Court had not exercised its discretion in a reasonable and objective manner, even though it had granted the applications for a condonation of delay despite providing an inadequate explanation for the 3703-day delay. The High Court ought to have used its discretion in a methodical and knowledgeable way. It is not appropriate to use the liberal perspective on the necessity of cause for delay to supersede a significant statute of limitations. The Court noted that the substantive law of limitation cannot be abandoned in favor of ideas like “liberal approach,” “justice-oriented approach,” and “substantial justice.”
SUPREME COURT’S OBSERVATION ON CONDONATION OF DELAY:
The law of limitation is basically provisioned to end litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself. It states that a right or remedy that has not been used for a long time must expire after a certain period of time. The provisions of the Limitation Act must be interpreted differently, with Section 3 being interpreted strictly and Section 5 being interpreted more broadly. Though liberal approaches, justice-oriented approaches, or causes of substantial justice may be kept in mind in order to achieve substantial justice, they cannot be utilized to overturn the substantive law of limitation.
If sufficient cause has been shown, courts have the authority to use their discretion to excuse the delay, however, this authority is discretionary and may not be used even in cases where sufficient cause has been shown for a variety of reasons, including excessive delay, negligence, or a failure to exercise due diligence. The court’s decision to grant a delay in condonation application must be made based on the parameters established for doing so. Just because some people have received relief in a similar matter does not mean that others will also benefit from the same outcome if the court is not satisfied with the reason given for the delay in filing the appeal.
CASE TITLE: Pathupati Subba Reddy (DIED) By LRS. and ORS. Versus Special Deputy Collector (LA)
NAME: Riya Shukla; COURSE: LL.M.(One Year); COLLEGE: MUIT, Noida; INTERN UNDER 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.
0 Comments