Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) By Lrs vs Exe.Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project & Anr

ITEM NO. 1-A ( For COURT No.5 SECTION IX Judgment )

SUPREM E CO URT O F INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal Nos.............of 2008 @ SLP(C)Nos. 21011-21014 of 2007

Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by Lrs. .. Appellant(s) Versus Exe.Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project & Anr. .. Respondent(s)

DATE : 03/11/2008 This matter was called on for pronouncement of judgment today.

For Appellant(s) Mr. G.B. Sathe, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar, Adv. Mrs. Arundhati, Adv.

Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Adv.

---

Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. Sudershan Reddy pronounced the judgment of the

Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia and his Lordship.

The appeals are allowed without any order as to costs in terms of the signed

judgment which is placed on the file.

[ S. Thapar ] [ Madhu Saxena ] PS to Registrar Court Master

[ Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file ]

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6414-6417 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP(c) Nos. 21011-21014 of 2007)

Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by Lrs. ...Appellant

Versus

Exe. Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project ...Respondents & Anr.

JUDGMENT

B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

Leave granted.

2. These appeals, by Special Leave, are directed against the common judgment

and order dated 22/23.08.2007 of the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad allowing the

applications filed by the first respondent under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter

referred to as `the said Act') to condone the delay of 1724 days in filing appeals against the award

passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon in land acquisition cases. The High Court

accepted the explanation offered by the respondent no. 1 herein for the apparent inordinate delay in

filing the appeals against the award of the Reference Court.

3. Brief facts needed for disposal of these appeals are as under:

4. The lands belonging to the appellants were acquired at the instance of the respondent for a

public purpose under the draft Notification published in Maharashtra Government Gazette on

06.03.1997. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Tapi Project (Hatnur), Jalgaon passed the

2 award dated 31.3.1999. The appellant sought for reference of the said award under Section 18 of the

Act seeking enhancement of the compensation. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon

disposed of the references vide award/judgment dated 9.3.2000 enhancing the compensation over and

above the amount fixed in the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Be it noted, not

only the Special Land Acquisition Officer but the first respondent herein was also impleaded as a

party respondent in the land acquisition reference case. The Executive Engineer, Medium Project

Division, Jalgaon filed appearance through its counsel but did not lead any evidence though a

written statement opposing the claim of enhancement was filed in the Reference Court. On

24.03.2000 the Government Pleader, Jalgaon submitted report and expressed his opinion that it is a

fit case for filing the appeal on the grounds stated in the report itself. The Law and Judiciary

Department took decision on 13.4.2000 to `acquiesce in the decision' of the Reference Court and

communicated the same to all the concerned including the first respondent herein who is the

beneficiary of the acquisition.

5. It is required to notice that neither the Special Land Acquisition Officer nor the beneficiary

of the acquisition raised little finger and objected to the decision taken in the matter. The Special

Land Acquisition Officer after about one year vide its letter dated 31.5.2001 addressed the Principal

Secretary to Law & Judiciary Department, Government of Maharashtra for reviewing the decision

taken regarding acquiesce in the decision of Reference Court in the matter. The government

reiterated its decision and expressed its view that under the rules the Joint Secretary Law &

Judiciary Department was competent to take appropriate decision in the matter on behalf of the

Government and found no reason to review the decision so taken by its Joint Secretary. The

Government accordingly informed not only the Special Land Acquisition Officer but also the first

respondent that more than one year had elapsed and there were no grounds for condoning the delay

in filing the appeals.

3

6. The beneficiary of the acquisition who is contesting the appeals before us did not take any

steps whatsoever after receiving the said communication until 25.2.2005 on which date the appeals

were preferred along with the applications to condone the delay of 1724 days except indulging in

some correspondence long after expiry of limitation. It is required to notice that the beneficiary of

the acquisition made arrangements for the deposit of the decreetal amount to be deposited by the

Special Land Acquisition Officer in the Reference Court in May, 2001 itself. Some further amounts

towards interest etc. were of course not deposited. The appellant executed the decree and realised

the entire money deposited into the court.

7. The High Court having considered the applications filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act

condoned the inordinate delay of 1724 days in filing the appeals. Hence these appeals by special

leave.

8. Shri Soli J. Sorabjee, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant

submitted that the approach adopted by the High Court in deciding the applications is totally

erroneous and cannot be sustained. The jurisdiction vested in the courts to consider whether any

sufficient cause has been shown to condone delay is no doubt discretionary but the discretion must

be exercised judicially and not in any arbitrary manner. It was further contended that the averments

made in the applications filed by the respondent herein seeking condonation of delay in preferring

the appeal is full of patently false averments. On this ground alone the applications ought to have

been dismissed. There 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.

9. Shri V.A. Mohta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the beneficiary of the

acquisition submitted that the High Court in its discretion condoned the delay in filing the appeal and

4 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. It was submitted that the Reference Court granted

exorbitant amount towards compensation thereby adversely effecting the public revenue and the

said circumstance itself requires consideration of appeals on merits. The learned senior counsel

submitted that the High Court rightly intervened in order to protect public interest. It was also

submitted that there were no mala fides on part of the beneficiary of acquisition in not preferring the

appeal within the period of limitation.

10. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions made during the course

of hearing of these appeals.

11. Whether the respondent made incorrect statement in the application seeking condonation

of delay?

There is no dispute whatsoever that the respondent being the beneficiary of the acquisition has

been duly impleaded as a party respondent in the reference cases as is required in law. It not only

appeared in the matter through a properly instructed counsel but also filed its written statement

opposing the claim for enhancement of compensation but did not choose to lead any evidence

whatsoever. In the application filed in the High Court the plea taken by the respondent is as under:

"The applicant submits that, although the applicant being Acquiring Body, was arrayed as opponent in the said reference, the opponent no. 4 herein (Original Opponent No. 1) S.L.A.O. or his subordinate contested the said reference by filing written statement. Therefore, this applicant was unaware about the stand taken by S.L.A.O. as well as the impugned judgment and award."

This averment in the application on the face of it is totally incorrect. The Law & Judiciary

Department as early as on 13.4.2000 i.e. to say 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

Court and communicated the same to all the concerned including the beneficiary of the acquisition.

It is not the case that the Executive Engineer did not receive the said communication. Having

5 received the said communication the respondent did not act in the matter and initiated any steps for

filing the appeals if it was really aggrieved by the decision of the Reference Court. There is no doubt

whatsoever in our mind that the respondent made totally incorrect statement in the application filed

in the High Court. We express our reservation as to the manner in which a public authority

conducted itself in its anxiety to somehow get the relief from the court. In our considered opinion

incorrect statement made in the application seeking condonation of delay itself is sufficient to reject

the application without any further inquiry as to whether the averments made in the application

reveal sufficient cause to condone the delay. That a party taking a false stand to get rid of the bar of

limitation should not be encouraged to get any premium on the falsehood on his part by condoning

delay. [See: (1993)1SCC 572].

12. Whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion?

The High Court in its order having noticed the relevant fact in categorical terms held that

there was no substance in the plea that it was unaware about the judgment and award passed by the

Reference Court since it was a party before the Reference Court and contested the matter. The High

Court also found that the decision of the Joint Secretary to acquiesce was communicated to the

beneficiary of the acquisition and therefore, its plea about the unawareness of the award and decision

taken by the Government cannot be accepted. The High Court in its order emphatically rejected the

ground raised by the respondent in that regard. In such view of the matter can it be said that the

High Court properly exercised its jurisdiction? It is true that the power to condone the delay rests

with the court in which the application was filed beyond time and decide whether there is sufficient

cause for condoning the delay and ordinarily the superior court may not interfere with such discretion

even if some error is to be found in the discretion so exercised by the court but where there is no

sufficient cause for condoning the delay but the delay was condoned, it is a case of discretion not

being exercised judicially and the order becomes vulnerable and susceptible for its correction by the

superior court. The High Court having found that the respondent in its application made incorrect

6 submission that it had no knowledge of the award passed by the Reference Court ought to have

refused to exercise its discretion. The High Court exercised its discretion on wrong principles. In

that view of the matter we cannot sustain the exercise of discretion in the manner done by the High

Court.

13. Whether the respondent had satisfied the court that it had sufficient cause for not

preferring the appeals within the prescribed time?

Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides for extension of prescribed period of limitation in

certain cases and confers jurisdiction upon the court to admit any application or any appeal after the

prescribed period if it is satisfied that the appellant or applicant had sufficient cause for not

preferring such appeal or application within the prescribed period.

14. In the present case the Reference Court passed the award under Section 18 of the Act on

09.03.2000. On 13.04.2000 itself the Government took decision not to prefer any appeal against the

decree and award passed by the Reference Court and accordingly communicated its decision to all

the concerned including the respondent. The Government vide its order dated 21.05.2001 refused to

review its decision and accordingly informed the same to the respondent beneficiary of acquisition.

The respondent beneficiary in its application seeking condonation of delay refers to the letter dated

19.11.2003 issued by the Secretary, Irrigation Department, directing it to obtain legal advice from an

advocate to initiate appropriate proceedings. The respondent instead of acting in the matter once

again had chosen to address S.L.A.O.vide letter dated 06.02.2004 with a request to challenge the

impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court. The same request was made by repeating

reminders upto 12.07.2004. On 18.05.2004, the respondent beneficiary addressed a letter to the

Collector requesting him to direct the Land Acquisition Officer to prefer an appeal. This

correspondence continued up to 21.06.2004. Thereafter, the application along with the appeal

seeking condonation of delay was filed on 25th February, 2005.

7 The applicant having set the machinery in motion cannot abandon it to resume it after number of

years because the authority with whom it had entered into correspondence did not heed to its request

to file appeals. The question is : Can the respondent/applicant in this case take advantage of its

negligence, after lapse of number of years, of the decision of Government? It knew the exact grounds

on which appeals could have been preferred. The law will presume that it knew of its right to file

appeal against the award. Everybody is presumed to know law. It was its duty to prefer appeals

before the court for consideration which it did not. There is no explanation forthcoming in this

regard. The evidence on record suggest neglect of its own right for long time in preferring appeals.

The court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity.

The court helps those who are vigilant and `do not slumber over their rights.'

The question for consideration is whether the averments disclosed any sufficient cause to

condone the inordinate delay of 1724 days in filing the appeals.

15. In Ajit Singh Thakur Singh and anr. vs. State of Gujarat [ (1981) 1 SCC 495 ] this court

observed :

"It is true that a party is entitled to wait until the last day of limitation for filing an appeal. But when it allows limitation to expire and pleads sufficient cause for not filing the appeal earlier, the sufficient cause must establish that because of some event or circumstance arising before limitation expired it was not possible to file the appeal within time. No event or circumstance arising after the expiry of limitation can constitute sufficient cause."

(Emphasis supplied)

This judgment squarely applies to the facts in hand.

17. The respondent beneficiary of the acquisition did not initiate any steps whatsoever before

expiry of limitation and no circumstances are placed before the court that steps were taken to file

appeals but it was not possible to file the appeals within time.

8

18. Shri Mohta, learned senior counsel relying on the decision of this court in N. Balakrishnan

vs. M. Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC 123] submitted that length of delay is no matter, acceptability

of explanation is the only criterion. It was submitted that if the explanation offered does not smack

of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of dilatory tactics the court must show utmost consideration

to the suitor. The very said decision upon which reliance has been placed holds that the law of

limitation fixes a life span for every legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury suffered.

Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential

anarchy. The law of Limitation is thus founded on public policy. The decision does not lay down

that a lethargic litigant can leisurely choose his own time in preferring appeal or application as the

case may be. On the other hand, in the said judgment it is said that court should not forget the

opposite party altogether. It is observed:

"It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium ( it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time."

19. In Ramlal and others vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. [ AIR 1962 SC 361], this court held that: "in

construing Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it is relevant to bear in mind two important

considerations. The first consideration is that the expiration of period of limitation prescribed for

making an appeal gives rise to right in favour of the decree holder to treat the decree as binding

between the parties and this legal right which has accrued to the decree holder by lapse of time

should not be light heartedly disturbed. The other consideration which cannot be ignored is that if

sufficient cause of excusing delay is shown discretion is given to the court to condone the delay and

admit the appeal. `It is further necessary to emphasis that even if the sufficient cause has been shown

a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a

sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the

court by section 5. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant

9 facts and it is at this stage the diligence of the party of its bona fides may fall for consideration." On

the facts and in the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the respondent beneficiary was not

diligent in availing the remedy of appeal. The averments made in the application seeking condonation

of delay in filing appeals do not show any acceptable cause much less sufficient cause to exercise

courts' discretion in its favour.

20. Learned senior counsel for the respondent also placed reliance upon the decision of this

court in Union of India vs. Sube Ram and others [ (1997) 9 SCC 69]. This court condoned delay of

3379 days in preferring the appeals by Special Leave. The said decision is mostly confined to the

facts of that case and does not lay down any law as such requiring us to make any further analysis of

the judgment.

21. Submissions based on public interest and involvement of public money:

The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision of this court in Union of India

vs. Balbir Singh and ors. [2000 (10)SCC 611] in support of his submission that the courts should be

liberal in condoning the delay particularly whenever public interest and public money is involved. All

that the said decision states is that in the circumstances of the case the court was inclined to condone

the delay, particularly, "because it is in the public interest as public money is involved." The facts are

not evident from the judgment and as to what were those public interest parameters that were taken

into consideration to condone the delay in filing appeals.

22. Basically the laws of Limitation are founded on public policy. In Halsbury's Laws of

England,4th Ed., Vol.28,p.266,para 605, the policy of the Limitation Acts is laid down as follows:

"The courts have expressed at least three different reasons supporting the existence of statutes of limitation, namely,(i) that long dormant claims have more of cruelty than justice in them, (ii) that a defendant might have lost the evidence to dispute the stated claim, (iii) that persons with good causes of actions should pursue them with reasonable diligence."

23. Statutes of limitation are sometimes described as `statutes of peace'. An unlimited and

10 perpetual threat of limitation creates insecurity and uncertainty; some kind of limitation is essential

for public order. This court in Rajender Singh and others vs. Santa Singh and others [(1973) 2 SCC

705] has observed : "the object of law of Limitation is to prevent disturbance and 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, negligence or laches". In Motichand vs. Munshi [(1969) 2 SCR 824], this

court observed that this principle is based on the maxim "interest republicae ut sit finis litum, that is,

the interest of the State requires that there should be end to litigation but at the same time law of

Limitation are a means to ensuring private justice suppressing fraud and perjury, quickening

diligence and preventing oppression.

It needs no restatement at our hands that the object for fixing time limit for litigation is based

on public policy fixing a life span for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. They are meant

to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly.

Salmond in his jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the

sleepy.

24. Public interest undoubtedly is a paramount consideration in exercising the courts

discretion wherever conferred upon it by the relevant statutes. Pursuing stale claims and multiplicity

of proceedings in no manner sub-serves public interest. Prompt and timely payment of compensation

to the land loosers facilitating their rehabilitation/resettlement is equally an integral part of public

policy. Public interest demands that the State or the beneficiary of acquisition, as the case may be,

should not be allowed to indulge in any act to unsettle the settled legal rights accrued in law by

resorting to avoidable litigation unless the claimants are guilty of deriving benefit which otherwise

not entitled in law in any fraudulent manner. One should not forget the basic fact that what is

acquired is not the land but the livelihood of the land loosers. These public interest parameters ought

to be kept in mind by the courts while exercising the discretion dealing with the application filed

under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Dragging the land loosers to courts of law years after the

termination of legal proceedings would not serve any public interest. Settled rights cannot be lightly

11 interfered with by condoning inordinate delay without there being any proper explanation of such

delay on the ground of involvement of public revenue. It serves no public interest.

25. It is true when the State and its instrumentalities are the applicants seeking condonation of

delay they may be entitled to certain amount of latitude but the law of limitation is same for citizen

and for Governmental authorities. Limitation Act does not provide for a different period to the

government in filing appeals or applications as such. It would be a different matter where the

Government makes out a case where public interest was shown to have suffered owing to acts of

fraud or collusion on the part of its officers or agents and where the officers were clearly at cross

purposes with it. In a given case if any such facts are pleaded or proved they cannot be excluded

from consideration and those factors may go into the judicial verdict. In the present case, no such

facts are pleaded and proved though a feeble attempt by the learned counsel for the respondent was

made to suggest collusion and fraud but without any basis. We cannot entertain the submission

made across the Bar without there being any proper foundation in the pleadings.

26. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the High Court gravely erred and exercised its

discretion to condone the inordinate delay of 1724 days though no sufficient cause has been shown by

the applicants. It is for that reason, we interfere with the decision of the High Court and set aside the

same. The appeals are accordingly allowed without any orders as to costs.

..........................................J (S.H. Kapadia)

..........................................J. (B. Sudershan Reddy)

New Delhi;

November 3, 2008

12 13