2013 (10) TMI 1567 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of condoning 1235 days delay in filing appeal u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Adequacy of explanation for delay provided by the respondents.
3. High Court's discretion in condoning the delay.

Summary:

1. Legality of condoning 1235 days delay in filing appeal u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
The appellant challenged the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court's order condoning 1235 days delay in filing an appeal by the respondents u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Reference Court had enhanced the rental compensation for the temporary acquisition of the appellant's land from Rs.3.75 to Rs.12.70 per sq. meter per annum. The respondents neither appealed within the limitation period nor paid the enhanced compensation, leading the appellant to send notices in 2008, which were ignored by the ONGC officers.

2. Adequacy of explanation for delay provided by the respondents:
The respondents attributed the delay to procedural formalities and the need for approval from higher authorities. An affidavit by Shri S.G. Bhatt blamed Advocate Shri C.M. Raval for not informing ONGC about the judgment. However, Bhatt's subsequent affidavit shifted the blame to a Class III employee, Mr. Kalpesh R. Shah, for failing to notice the judgment. The appellant contested these explanations, asserting that ONGC was aware of the judgment in 2008, and accused the respondents of making false statements to escape liability.

3. High Court's discretion in condoning the delay:
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for condoning the delay without considering the explanations and affidavits properly. The High Court assumed a "communication gap" between ONGC officers and their advocate, which was not supported by any evidence. The Supreme Court emphasized that the law of limitation is founded on public policy and aims to ensure timely vindication of rights. It noted that sufficient cause for delay must be bona fide and not based on negligence or falsehood. The Court referenced precedents advocating a liberal approach to condonation but stressed that this should not apply where the explanation lacks bona fides or is concocted.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found that the respondents failed to provide a credible explanation for the delay and that the High Court erred in condoning it. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, resulting in the dismissal of the respondents' appeal as time-barred. The Court directed the appellant to provide his bank account details to the respondents for the compensation to be deposited within a specified period.