9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Delay in filing an appeal under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. 2. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 3. Condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 4. Costs and interest payable to respondents 3 to 6. Analysis: 1. The Prescribed Authority determined compensation for surplus land acquisition, which the State of U.P. found unsatisfactory and filed an appeal after the limitation period. The District Judge rejected the application for condonation of delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred. 2. The appellant moved the High Court under Article 227, arguing sufficient cause for the delay. The High Court, while acknowledging the appellant's cause, declined to interfere with the District Judge's decision, citing a lack of authority to reverse a plausible view. However, the Supreme Court found the High Court's stance unjust and emphasized that Article 227 exists to advance justice, leading to the allowance of the appeal. 3. The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the District Judge and the High Court, granting the appellant's application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The matter was remitted to the District Judge for a merit-based appeal hearing. 4. Despite the decision in favor of the appellant, the Supreme Court ordered the appellant to pay costs incurred by respondents 3 to 6 in both the High Court and the Supreme Court, amounting to Rs. 1500. Additionally, the appellant was directed to pay 9% interest on the compensation amount determined by the Prescribed Authority from the date of the original order. This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to limitation periods, the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227, the principles governing condonation of delay, and the consequences of legal actions on parties involved in a case.
|
