LexSHEO RAJ SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2023] 13 S.C.R. 743 : 2023 INSC 885 743 CASE DETAILS SHEO RAJ SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 5867 of 2015) OCTOBER 09, 2023 [BELA M. TRIVEDI AND DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justifi ed in condoning the delay in presentation of the appeal; and whether the department had shown suffi cient cause for which the appeal could not be presented within the prescribed period of limitation. Delay/laches – Condonation of – Exercise of discretionary power – High Court condoned the delay of around 479 days in presentation of the appeal by the Department from the decision of the Reference Court whereby it had enhanced compensation payable to the landowners – Correctness of: Held: Substantive rights of private parties and the State are not defeated at the threshold simply due to technical considerations of delay – However, condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the suffi ciency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial – There is no formula that caters to all situations – Sometimes, due to want of suffi cient cause being shown or an acceptable explanation being proff ered, delay of the shortest range may not be condoned whereas, in certain other cases, delay of long periods can be condoned if the explanation is satisfactory and acceptable – Courts must distinguish between an ‘explanation’ and an ‘excuse’ – High Court did not exercise discretion in an arbitrary manner – Order under challenge had to be a clearly wrong order so as to be liable for interference, which it is not – High Court’s decision to condone the delay on account of the SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 13 S.C.R. 744 department’s inability to present the appeal within time, for the reasons assigned therein, does not suff er from any error warranting interference – An exercise of discretion does, at times, call for a liberal and justice- oriented approach by Courts, where certain leeway could be provided to the State – Hidden forces that are at work in preventing an appeal by the State being presented within the prescribed period of limitation so as not to allow a higher court to pronounce upon the legality and validity of an order of a lower court and thereby secure unholy gains, cannot be ignored – Impediments in the working of the grand scheme of governmental functions have to be removed by taking a pragmatic view on balancing of the competing interests – Thus, the impugned order reasonably condoned the delay caused in presenting the appeal before the High Court. [Para 29, 30, 32, 37, 38] Delay/laches – Condonation of – An ‘explanation’ and an ‘excuse’ off ered for the delay – Diff erence between: Held: Courts must distinguish between an ‘explanation’ and an ‘excuse’ – Care must be taken to distinguish explanation from excuse – An ‘explanation’ is designed to give someone all of the facts and lay out the cause for something – It helps clarify the circumstances of a particular event and allows the person to point out that something that has happened is not his fault, if it is really not his fault – An ‘excuse’ is often off ered by a person to deny responsibility and consequences when under attack. LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES Balwant Singh (Dead) v. Jagdish Singh & Ors. (2010) 8 SCC 685 : [2010] 8 SCR 597; University of Delhi v. Union of India & Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 745 : [2019] 16 SCR 1259; Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107 : [1987] 2 SCR 387; State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO & Ors. (2005) 3 SCC 752 : [2005] 3 SCR 108; Lanka Venkateswarlu (Dead) v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 363 : [2011] 3 SCR 217; Postmaster General & Ors. v. Living Media India Limited & Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 563 : [2012] 1 SCR 1045; Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors. (2013) 12 SCC 649 : [2013] 9 SCR 782; State of 745 Manipur & Ors. v. Koting Lamkang (2019) 10 SCC 408 : [2019] 13 SCR 565; G. Ramegowda v. Spl. Land Acquisition Offi cer (1988) 2 SCC 142 : [1988] 3 SCR 198; State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani (1996) 3 SCC 132 : [1996] 1 SCR 1060; Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition v. K.V. Ayisumma (1996) 10 SCC 634 : [1996] 3 Suppl. SCR 848; Manjunath Anandappa v. Tammanasa (2003) 10 SCC 390 : [2003] 2
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.