Blog

Case Title – Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By L.Rs. & Ors. Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (La)

Case Number – Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 31248 Of 2018

Order Number – 8^th April, 2024

Quorum – Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By L.Rs. & Ors. Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (La), the facts revolve around a land acquisition dispute in a village named Gandluru, District Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. In this case, a reference was filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act when a dispute arose involving 16 claimants being disappointed with the compensation offered to them. An appeal was filed to revert the decision of the reference by the second surviving daughter of Pathapati Subba Reddy (died) who was the claimant No.11 in the said case. The appeal was dismissed by the High Court on September 24,1999 to condone a delay of 5659 days in filing the proffered appeal. The decision was negligent and lacked procedural review. Initially, the case was instituted as a Special Leave Petition (SLP) by the petitioners to challenge the decision of the High Court to dismiss the proffered appeal. After a substantial period, more than 6 years later, an appeal was premeditated to be filed in the High Court under Section 54 of the L.O.A. Out of the original 16 claimants, only those aligned with the claimant No.11 showed keen engrossment in challenging the preceding decision of reference, whereas the rest of the claimants opted not to take any action or initiate any independent appeals. The legal heir of claimant No.11 discovered the fact that the appeal delayed by a period of 5659 days was due to a dismissal of reference in 1999. A prompt appeal was filed justifying the delay. The condonation of delay in instituting the appeal beyond the prescribed time of limitation was declined by the High Court and the same was reasoned as time-barred in the order dated 18.01.2017. The petitioners contested the ruling of the High Court to dismiss the appeal stating it as time-barred which revolves around a dispute concerning the condonation of delay in instituting an appeal.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER

1. The Petitioner, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the compensation provided to them for the land acquisition was inadequate and significantly lower than the market value of the land.
2. The Petitioner through their counsel, in the said case contented that the method used for valuation was incorrect and that the relevant documents were not considered before conducting the valuation of the land.
3. The Petitioner through their counsel, in the said case contented that the delay of condonation was due to the dismissal of reference and that the LR lacked proper legal guidance after the dismissal of the reference.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

1. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the compensation provided to the petitioner for the land acquisition was adequate and that the land valuation was done appropriately considering the market value of the land.
2. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the relevant documents were also considered before conducting the valuation of the land.
3. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the petitioners were negligent and lacked sufficient cause for the delay in condonation.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 prescribes the Reference to Court
2. Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 prescribes the Appeals in Proceedings Before Court
3. Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes the Bar of Limitation
4. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes Extension of Prescribed Period in Certain Case

ISSUES

1. The main issue of the said case revolves around whether the compensation provided to the petitioners for the land acquisition were apt?
2. Another issue revolved around whether the delay in filing the appeal was justified and whether it should be condoned based on the negligence, lack of due diligence and absence of sufficient cause.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The decision of the High Court in refusing the condonation of delay was upheld by the Supreme Court of India which led to the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred. Four reasons were stated on which the judgment was established. The first reason was that there was a lack of due diligence on the petitioner’s part in hounding the matter. The second reason was that there was negligence on the part of the claimant in pursuing the reference and instituting the premeditated appeal. The third reason was that out of the 16 claimants, most of them accepted the reference court’s decision and the last reason was that the claimants did not seek procedural review. The court accentuated the need for furnishing sufficient cause to justify the condonation of delay in legal proceedings as well as the adherence to the law of limitation. The court observed that the resurrection of dead matters cannot be used in the context of phrases “Justice-Oriented” and “Liberal Approach” under the Section 5 of the Limitation Act,1963. The court also asserted a lack of merit in the Special Leave Petition from the petitioner’s side in filing an appeal in the stipulated time frame keeping in view the limitation period. The case was dismissed by the Supreme Court due to lack of merit

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click here to View Judgement