A
THE SPECIAL TEHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION, KERALA
v.
K. V. A Y!SUMMA
JULY 23, 1996
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, .T.I.]
Limitatio11 Act, 1963: Section 5.
Delay occasioned at the behest of Govemn;e11t-Condo11ation
C of-Delay must be explained satL1factori6> to Co1ut-Act makes no distinction
bcl1veen State and citizen-i'lonetheless rvhen cnndonation of delay is sought
by Govemment adoption of sllict standard of proof would lead to w·ave
miscaniage of justice-Approach of Court should be pragmatic and not
pedantic-Land acquisition-Decree and award-Review application by State
seeking review-Delay condoned ivitlrout insisting upon explaining ei'e1y day's
D delay in filing the review application-Held justified.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 334 of
1993.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.7.92 of the Kerala High
E Court in C.R P. No. 695 of 1992-C.
M.T. George for the Appellant.
B.V. Deepak, Dilip Pillai and G. Prakash for the Respondent.
F
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court
of Kerala dated July 27, 1992 made in CRP No. 695/92. The admitted facts
are that in an acquisition of the land for public purpose, the reference
Court by its award and decree dated March 31, 1989 had enhanced the
G compensation. The appellant had filed an application on July 29, 1991 to
review the award and decree. There was a delay in filing the application ..
The learned Subordinate Judge had condoned the delay. Against the said
order of condoning the delay, the respondent had gone in revision to the
High Court. The High Court in the impugned order set aside the order of
H the Subordinate Judge. Thus this appeal by special leave.
848
'
SPL. TEHSILDAR v. KV.A YJSUMMA
849
It is now settled law that when Lhc delay was occasioned al the behest
of the Government, il would be Yery difficult-to explain the Jay to Jay
delay. The transaction of the business of the Government being Jone
leisurely by officers who haJ no or evince no personal interest al different
levels. No one Lakes personal responsibility in processing the matters
expeditiously. As a fact al several stages, they take their own time to reach
a decision. Even in spite of pointing at the Jelay, they do not take
expeditious action for ultimate decision in filing Lhe appeal. This case is
A
B
one of such instances. It is true that Section 5 of the Limitation Act
envisages explanation of the delay Lo the satisfaction of the Court and in
~alters of Limitation Act n1ade no di~tinction bct\vcen the State and the
citizen. Nonetheless adoption of strict slandarJ of proof leads to grave C
miscarriage of public justice, it would result in public mischief b_v skilful
management of delay in the process of filing the appeal. The approach of
the Court would be pragmatic but not pedandic. Under those circumstan-
ces, Lhc Subordinate .Judge has rightly adopted correct approach and had
condoneJ the delay \Vlthout insisting upon explaining every day's delay in D
filing the revie\v application in the light of the la\v laid dc1\vn by this Court.
The High Court was not right in setting aside the order. Delay \Vas rightly
condoned.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The case is remitted to the
reference Court for disposal of the review petition in accordance \Vith la\v.
E
No costs.
T.N.A.
Appeal allowed.
Lex