2024 (5) TMI 1486 - SC - Indian Laws

Lapse of acquisition proceedings in terms of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - condonation of delay in filing appeals - Suppression of facts by the landowners - Change of law - Leeway to be granted to government entities - COVID-19 Pandemic - Supreme Court frowning upon the filing of fresh SLPs - Public interest and justice. Condonation of delay in filing appeals - HELD THAT - As is clear from a plain reading of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, there are exceptions to this general rule. The statute allows for admitting an action provided sufficient cause is shown. This vests courts with the discretion to extend the period of limitation if the applicant can show that he had sufficient cause for not preferring an appeal or application within the prescribed period. Section 5 requires analysis of two ingredients first, an examination of whether sufficient cause has been made out; and second, whether such cause has been shown for not filing the appeal/application within the prescribed period . While there is no arithmetical formula, through decades of judicial application, certain yardsticks for judging the sufficiency of cause for condonation of delay have evolved. Mere good cause is not sufficient enough to turn back the clock and allow resuscitation of a claim otherwise barred by delay. The court ought to be cautious while undertaking such an exercise, being circumspect against condoning delay which is attributable to the applicant - Causes arising after the culmination of the limitation period, despite being sufficient in substance, would not suffice for condonation given this second prong of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. However, the applicant shall not be required to prove each day s delay till the date of filing such appeal/application. Suppression of facts by the landowners - HELD THAT - The respondent-landowners have not been called upon to refute or admit the allegations of concealment of facts attributed to some of them. Similarly, it is not asked the appellants to produce original records and documents to substantiate their allegation of concealment and suppression of material facts. It is conscious that entering into an arena of factual controversy at such an advanced stage of litigation, and that too without giving adequate opportunities to the parties can be a potential threat to the cause of justice. Simultaneously, the appellants contention in this regard cannot be brushed aside lightly. The appellants have discharged a prima facie burden for the limited purpose of making out a case for condonation of delay in the cases mentioned in the appended List-A , which shall be read as a part of this judgment. We believe that a fact-finding exercise is necessary in these cases, and hence, there exist sufficient grounds for the condonation of delay. The nature of relief to be eventually granted after condoning the delay, will be separately dealt with in Part E of this order. Change of law - HELD THAT - The subsequent change of law will not be attracted unless a case is pending before the competent court awaiting its final adjudication. To say it differently, if a case has already been decided, it cannot be re-opened and re-decided solely on the basis of a new interpretation given to that law. Leeway to be granted to government entities - HELD THAT - If delay were to be condoned merely on the basis of a broad general assertion of bureaucratic indifference, without requiring demonstration of bona fide or an act of mala fide on the part of specific individuals, it would create an artificial distinction between the private parties and the government entities vis- -vis the law of limitation. This would not be in conformity with the spirit of equality before law as guaranteed under our Constitution. Allowing such latitude would further distort incentives for the government and encourage more laxity by the bureaucracy in its general functioning, thereby undermining quality governance. COVID-19 Pandemic - HELD THAT - The benefit of IN RE COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION 2022 (1) TMI 385 - SC ORDER can be availed by the appellants only in a case where the period of limitation expired between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022. Supreme Court frowning upon the filing of fresh SLPs - HELD THAT - Even if the appellants contention is believed to be true that some of the SLPs were dismissed on the strength of the then governing law as laid down in PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ANR. VERSUS HARAKCHAND MISIRIMAL SOLANKI ORS. 2014 (1) TMI 1643 - SUPREME COURT , this could not be an impediment for filing SLPs on time. Had it been so, this Court would not have had the opportunity to reconsider Pune Municipal Corporation and SREE BALAJI NAGAR RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU ORS 2014 (9) TMI 941 - SUPREME COURT . That apart, some of the cases which are part of this batch belies the appellants stance. Instead, it is likely that the appellants took a careful, considered and conscious call of not agitating their claims as they perceived their chances of success to be bleak. Public interest and justice - HELD THAT - The impact of not condoning the delay would thus be three-fold, which taken altogether make a compelling case for condonation of delay one, there will be significant harm to the public at large by way of delayed infrastructure, in addition to financial loss to the public exchequer; second, the comparative benefit to landowners would not be substantial given that no indefeasible rights have been vested with them as the lis has not yet acquired quietus in most cases; and third, the matter would still not attain finality as the State is likely to invoke its power of eminent domain and reinitiate acquisition proceedings given the criticality of the infrastructure being built - the larger interest of justice mandates us to condone the delay in the present batch of cases. The impugned judgment of the High Court in each case is set aside, and the acquisition of the respondents lands under 1894 Act is consequently upheld - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Condonation of Delay
2. Suppression of Facts by the Landowners
3. Change of Law
4. Leeway to be Granted to Government Entities
5. Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic
6. Supreme Court's Stance on Filing Fresh SLPs
7. Public Interest and Justice
8. Delay Already Condoned in Some Cases

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay:
The judgment emphasizes that the Limitation Act, 1963, prescribes specific time limits for initiating legal actions to ensure finality and certainty in litigation. The Act allows for condonation of delay if "sufficient cause" is shown. The Court highlighted that mere good cause is not enough to condone delay; the explanation for the delay is crucial. The Court must balance technicalities with a justice-oriented approach, prioritizing substantial justice over procedural technicalities.

2. Suppression of Facts by the Landowners:
The appellants argued that the landowners suppressed material facts, such as previous unsuccessful litigations and the fact that some lands had already vested in Gaon Sabhas. The Court acknowledged the appellants' prima facie case for condonation of delay due to alleged suppression of facts. It directed a fact-finding inquiry to ascertain the rightful claimant for compensation, reviving relevant writ petitions for further examination by the High Court.

3. Change of Law:
The appellants sought condonation of delay based on changes in law through subsequent judgments. The Court rejected this ground, stating that events occurring after the expiration of the limitation period cannot justify delay. It emphasized that a case's overruling affects only its precedential value, not the settled lis between parties. The Court clarified that cases pending final adjudication would be decided based on the latest legal interpretation.

4. Leeway to be Granted to Government Entities:
The appellants argued for leniency in delay condonation for government entities due to bureaucratic processes. The Court, however, noted that modern technological advancements reduce the validity of this argument. It stressed that government entities must demonstrate bona fide and diligence, and bureaucratic indifference cannot justify delay.

5. Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic:
The Court discussed the extension of limitation periods due to the COVID-19 pandemic, as ordered by the Supreme Court. It clarified that this extension benefits only those whose limitation periods expired during the pandemic. The appellants could avail this benefit only if their limitation period expired between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022.

6. Supreme Court's Stance on Filing Fresh SLPs:
The appellants claimed they were discouraged from filing fresh SLPs due to the Court's stance. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the appellants' conscious decision not to file SLPs cannot justify delay. It noted that some cases in the batch were filed before the relevant judgments, contradicting the appellants' claim.

7. Public Interest and Justice:
The Court acknowledged the complexity of balancing public interest with individual rights. It noted that non-condonation of delay could harm public infrastructure projects and cause financial loss to the exchequer. The Court concluded that the larger interest of justice mandates condonation of delay, considering the public projects' criticality and the absence of mala fide by the appellants.

8. Delay Already Condoned in Some Cases:
The Court noted that delay was condoned in some cases without notice to respondents, contrary to procedural rules. However, it deemed this inconsequential as respondents were heard extensively during proceedings. The Court ordered de-tagging and separate listing of cases where notice was not issued, ensuring compliance with procedural standards.

Conclusion and Directions:
The Court condoned the delay in filing appeals, except for cases in specified lists. It directed the High Court to conduct a fact-finding inquiry in cases with allegations of fraud and suppression of facts. The Court emphasized the importance of public interest and justice in condoning delay, allowing government entities to proceed with public infrastructure projects.