Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji, 137 AIR 1987

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji Case Summary 1987

Introduction 

This  landmark judgement have explained the scope of Section 5, Limitation act ,1963 and inclusion of Government as a party to claim Condonation of delay.

Facts 

• State of J&k appealed against the order of the HC by which the compensation, which had to be made for acquisition of land for public purpose, was enhanced. 
• However this appeal was rejected by the court due to delay of 4 days.
• Hence, State of J&K went to the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition under Article 136.

Issue Involved

1. On what ground, the court can condone the delay of an appeal ?
2. Whether the law differs to 'Condone the delay' in case of State and Private Party ? 

Ratio Decidendi

Issue 1

1. The legislature has provided the power to condone the delay by enacting Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
2. Section 5 of the limitation act says : 
• Any appeal or an application
• Other than an application made under Order XXI of the CPC, 1908.
• May be admitted
• After the prescribed period
• If the appellant or the applicant
• Satisfies the court 
• About 'Sufficient Cause' 
• For not preferring the appeal on such period.
3. Under Section 5 "Sufficient Cause" enables the court to apply law in a meaningful manner which serves the end of justice.
4. There are following things to care under  Section 5 : 
• Every days delay must be explained to condone the delay however it does not mean that every hour delay or every second delay.
• This section applies in a rational common sense and pragmatic manner.
• 'Sufficient cause' needed to condone the delay.
• Whenever conflict arises between substantial/complete justice and technical consideration then 'Substantial justice' will be preferred.
• Delay must not cause deliberately or on account of culpable negligence or on account of malafide.

Issue 2

1. As per the 'Doctrine of Equality' all litigant including the state as litigant gets same treatment before law 
2. Therefore, in the present case  'State' which was seeking condonation is equal before law.

Judgment 

1. Hence, the appeal is allowed.