LexBASAWARAJ & ANR. versus THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 227 BASAWARAJ & ANR. v. THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (Civil Appeal No. 6974 of 2013) AUGUST 22, 2013 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A .. BOBDE, JJ.) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 54 - Time barred appeal A B - Appeals under - Dismissal of, by High Court .on ground of limitation, after dismissal of applications for condonation of C delay - Justification - Held: Justified - Condonation of delay is to be based on sound legal parameters - In the instant case, there was a delay of 5-112 years in filing the appeals u/ s.54 before the High Court - The only explanation offered for approaching the court at such a belated stage was that one D of the appellants had taken ill -No "sufficient cause" given by the appellants which prevented them to approach the High court within limitation - No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay - Limitation Act, 1963 - s.5. Limitation - Statute of - Aim and rationale - Public policy - To secure peace in the community, to suppress fraud and perjury, to quicken diligence and to prevent oppression - Held: E Limitation prevents disturbance or deprivation of what may have been acquired in equity and justice by long enjoyment or what may have been lost by a party's own inaction, F negligence' or /aches - The law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes - The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds - Maxims - Maxim "dura Jex sed Jex" G Constitution of India, 1950 -Article 14 - Scope of - Held: It is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases - The said 227 H 228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 8 S.C.R. A provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect - If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a Judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court B for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a similarly wrong order - Doctrines - Doctrine of equality. Words and Phrases - "Sufficient cause" - Meaning of C The land of the appellants was acquired in pursuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Thereafter, an award under Section 11 of the Act was made fixing the market value of the land. The appellants preferred references under Section 18(1) of the D Act whereupon the reference court passed award dated 28-2-2002. Aggrieved, the appellants filed appeals under Section 54 of the Act before the High Court on 16.8.2007 with E applications for condonation of delay. The applications for condonation of delay stood rejected as the High Court did not find any sufficient cause to condone the delay, and dismissed the appeals on the ground of limitation. Hence, these appeals. F Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision G does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/ benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as H well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot BASAWARAJ & ANR. v. SPL. LAND ACQUISITION 229 OFFICER be perpetuated. Equality is a trite, which cannot be A claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a Judicial forum, others cannot invoke the B jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a similarly wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. c Even otherwise, Article 14 cannot be stretched too far for otherwise it would make functioning of administration impossible. [Para 8] [236-D-H] Chandigarh Administration & Anr. v. Jagjit Singh & Anr. AIR 1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.