PUNDLIK JALAM PATIL (D) BY LRS. versus EXE. ENG. JALGAON MEDIUM PROJECT & ANR.

Citation: [2008] 15 S.C.R. 135 · Decided: 03-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.H. KAPADIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 15 S.C.R. 135 
,,.. 
PUNDLIK JALAM PATIL (D) BY LRS. 
A 
v. 
EXE. ENG. JALGAON MEDIUM PROJECT & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6414-17of 2008) 
NOVEMBER 3, 2008 
B 
[S.H. KAPADIA AND 8. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.] 
Limitation Act, 1963; s. 5: 
Land Acquisition - Award by Special Land Acquisition c 
Officer- Reference - Compensation enhanced by Reference 
Court - Appeal against with application for condonation of 
delay, filing of, by beneficiary - Delay condoned by High 
Court - Challenge to - Held: Decision of State Government 
to acquiesce in the judgment/award of Reference Court D 
,~. 
enhancing compensation communicated to all including 
respondent No. 1 - Respondent No. 1 did not initiate any steps 
for filing appeals in time - In the application for condonation 
of delay incorrect averments have been made - A party taking 
a false stand to get rid of bar of limitation should not be 
E 
encouraged -
Where delay was condoned by the Court 
without sufficient cause being shown by the party, such order 
of the Court susceptible for correction by the Superior Court 
- In the instant case, High Court exercised its discretion on 
_.\--
wrong principles and erred in condoning the inordinate delay 
without showing any sufficient cause - Hence, impugned order F 
cannot be sustained and set aside - Appeal - Delay in filing 
of. 
-
/ 
Belated claims - Consideration of, on ground of equity 
- Held: Delay defeats equity - Court helps those who are 
G 
.....,, 
vigilant - Equity . 
Limitation vis-a-vis public policy - Discussed . 
• 
State Government of Maharashtra, at the instance of 
135 
H 
136 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 
I 
:¥' 
A respondent No.1, the beneficiary, had acquired the land 
belonging to appellants. The Special Land Acquisition 
Officer passed an award fixing. certain amount of 
compensation in favour of appellants in lieu of 
acquisitioning of their land. Appellants filed Reference 
B Petition impleading respondent No.1 as a party. The 
Reference Court enhanced the compensation. The State 
Government took a decision to acquiesce in the decision 
of the Reference Court and communicated it to all 
concerned including respondent No.1. The Special Land 
c Acquisition Officer, after lapse of one year, requested the 
State Government to review its decision and grant 
permission to them to file the appeal. The State 
Government reiterated its earlier decision. Later, 
respondent No.1, the beneficiary, preferred appeals along 
D with applications to· condone the delay of 1724 days. In 
the meantime, appellants executed the decree and 
), 
realized the amount of compensation as deposited by 
respondent No.1. The High Court condoned the delay in 
filing the ~ppeals. Hence the present appeals. 
E 
Appellants, inter alia, contended that the jurisdiction 
vested in the courts to consider whether sufficient cause 
has been shown to condone delay is no doubt 
discretionary but the discretion must be exercised 
judicially and not in an arbitrary manner; and that there 
j--
F is no explanation whatsoever forthcoming as to why 
respondent being beneficiary could not have preferred 
the appeals if it was aggrieved by the award passed by 
the Reference Court. 
r 
' 
G 
Respondent, the beneficiary, submitted that the High 
Court in its discretion condoned the delay in filing the 
appeal and even if it is an erroneous one this Court 
.,,,... 
should not interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction under 
Article 136 of the Constitution of India; that the Reference 
H 
Court granted exorbitant amount towards compensation 
PUNDLIK JALAM PATIL (D) BY LRS. v. EXE. ENG. 
137 
""' 
JALGAON MEDIUM PROJECT & ANR. 
thereby adversely affecting the public revenue and the 
A 
said circumstance itself requires consideration of 
appeals on merits; that there were no mala fides on part 
of the beneficiary of acquisition in not preferring the 
appeal within the period of limitation. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1.1. The Law & Judiciary Department of the 
State Government within the period of 15 days from the 
date of the award of the Reference Court communicated 
its decision to acquiesce in the decision of the Reference c 
Court and communicated the same to all the concerned 
including the beneficiary of the acquisition; that it is not 
the case of the respondent that he did not receive the said 
communication. Having received the commu-nication, 
J... 
the respondent did not act in the matter and initiated any 
D 
steps for 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.