Holding

The petitions are barred by limitation and no sufficient cause exists to condone the delay; Section 28A does not apply, and special leave is not granted.

Summary

The petitioners filed special leave petitions more than three years after a High Court judgment, seeking to increase the compensation for land acquired to Rs.17.50 per square yard, relying on two Supreme Court decisions that had enhanced compensation for adjacent land. They argued that the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, particularly sections 25 and 28A, allowed a redetermination of compensation. The Court examined whether the delay could be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and whether Section 28A applied to the petitioners. It held that the petitions were hopelessly barred by limitation, that Section 28A did not apply because the petitioners were not the intended class of beneficiaries, and that the Supreme Court’s earlier enhancement of compensation did not constitute sufficient cause for condonation. Consequently, the special leave petitions were dismissed with costs.

Issues considered

Whether the inordinate delay in filing the special leave petitions can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Whether Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, as amended in 1984, applies to the petitioners for redetermination of compensation.
Whether the Supreme Court's enhancement of compensation in earlier cases provides a ground for condoning the delay.
Whether a final award of compensation can be reopened under Sections 25 and 28A of the Land Acquisition Act.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. 136
Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 18, s. 25, s. 28A
Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984s. 25, s. 28A
Limitation Act, 1963s. 5

Subjects

LimitationSpecial Leave PetitionLand AcquisitionCompensation EnhancementSection 28ASection 25Delay CondonationSupreme CourtCompensation Redetermination

Judgment

A

MEWA RAM (DECEASED) BY HIS L.RS. AND ORS.
v.
STAIB OF HARYANA THROUGH THE LAND
·B ACQUISITTON COLLECTOR, GURGAON

AUGUST 26, 1986.

[A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.]
-+
Limitation Act, 1963, section 5-Inordinate delay in filing S.L.P.
c

~
-Delay not explained-Whether enhancement of the rate of compensa-
tion by the Court in a subsequent case a sufficient ground for condoning
delay in filing a S.L.P.

Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Sections 25 and 28A-Redetermi-
D nation of the amount of compensation-When permissible. -r-
The petitioners, after a lapse of more than three years from the
date of the High Conrt Jndgment, filed the present petitions for enh-
ancement of the rate of compensation to Rs.17.50 per sqnare yard on
I
the ground that the Supreme Court in two cases decided on April 1,
E 1982 bad enhanced the rate of compensation to Rs.17 .50 per square
yard for the adjacent land acquired. Counsel for the petitioners' con- .,,\
tended that the Court should not be unduly technical and deprive the '·
citizens of their legitimate claims in view of the change in law by the
introduction of sections 25 and 28A in the Land Acquisition Act by the
Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984.
F
Dismissing the petitions,
--\
HELD: There is no reason to grant special leave in these cases
which are hopelessly barred by time. Merely because the Supreme ~
Court in the two cases enhanced the rate of compensation to Rs.17 .50
G per square yard, could not furnish a gro\lnd for condonation of delay
under section 5 of tbe Limitation Act. [663D-E]

2.1 Section 28A of the Act in terms does not apply to the case of
the petitioners for more than one reason. In the first place, they do not
belong to that class of society for whose benefit the provision is intended
and meant, i.e. inarticulate and poor people· who by reason of their
>·
H

660
M. RAM v. STATE OF HARYANA !SFN. J.J 661

poverty and ignorance have failed to take advantage of the right of A
reference to the civil court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894. The petitioners had all applied for reference under section 18
of the Act and the civil court by adopting a different basis for computa-
tion, namely, treating the land to be potential building site, substan-
tially enhanced the amount of compensation. ~n appeal, there was B
further enhancement by the High Court and the petitioners have with-
....... drawn large snms of money at each stage. Evidently, th.. petitioners felt
satisfied with the enhanced amount of compensation as awarded by the
High Court @Rs.12.25 per square yard because they did not apply f~r
grant of special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution for more than
ihree years. [662H; 663A-E)
c
2.2 There is also no provision in the Act apart from section 28A
for reopening of an award which has become fmal and conclusive. lfthe
conditions laid down in the section were satisfied, the petitioners contd
have availed of the remedy provided under section 28A of the Act. In that
event, section 25 would ensure to their benefit. Any other view would lead D
to disasterous consequences not intended by the Legislature. [663E-G]

Madras Port Trust v. Hymanshu International by its Proprietor v.
Venkatadri (dead) by Lrs., (1979] 4 SCC °176, distinguished.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition
E
(Civil) No. 13379 of 1983 etc.

From the judgment and Order dated 8.5.1980 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in R.F.A. No. 2030of1978.
t~ S.N. Kacker and S.K. Sabharwal for the Petitioners. F
K.G. Bhagat, l.S. Goel and C.V. Subba Rao for the Respon-
. dents.

The Order of the Court was delivered by
G
SEN, J. In these special leave petitions which are much belated.
the only qu.estion was whether the Court should entertain the petitions
. despite the delay and grant special leave merely because this Court in
.Paltu Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana and Nand Kishore & Ors. v.
State of Haryana & Ors. (Civil Appeals Nos. 1251 and 1252 of 1982,
both decided on April l, 1982) enhanced the rate of compensation for H
662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 3 S.C.R.

A the'adjacent land acquired to Rs.17.50 per square yard. The petition
of Mewa Ram is barred by 1079 days, that of Pat Ram by 1146 days
and of Ram Sarup by 1098 days. We heard the matter thrice on the
question whether there was any sufficient cause for condonation of
delay under s. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. We were not satisfied that
B there was any cause much less sufficient cause within the meaning of s.
5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The petitioners then
took time to file further and better affidavits explaining the unexp-
lained, inordinate delay in moving the Court.

At the resumed hearing Shri S.N. Kacker, learned counsel for
the petitioners, confines his submission to the change in law by the · I
C introduction of ss. 25 and 28A by the Land Acquisition (Amendment)
Act, 1984 (Act 68 of 1984) and places particular emphasis to Para (ix) 1
of the Objects and Reasons, to the effect:

"Considering that the right of reference to the civil court
under s. 18 of the Act is not usuaIIy taken advantage of by
D
inarticulate and poor people and is usually exercised only
by the comparatively affluent landowners and that this
causes considerable inequality in the payment of compen-
sation for the same or similar quality of land to different
interested parties, it is proposed to provide an opportunity
to aII aggrieved parties whose land is covered under the
E
same notification to seek re-determination of compensa-
tion, once any one of them has obtained orders for pay-
ment of higher compensation from the reference court un-
der s. 18 of the Act."

The learned counsel contends on the strength of the provisions
F
contained in ss. 25 and 28A that the Court should not be unduly
technical and deprive the citizens of their legitimate claims. In support
of his submission he relies on certain observations made by this Court
in Madras Port Trust v. Hymanshu International by its Proprietor V.
Venkatadri (dead) by Lrs., [1979] 4 SCC 176 to the effect that plea of
limitation by the Government to defeat just claims of citizens should
G
not be countenanced. We are afraid, the contention cannot prevail.

Shri Kacker, learned counsel for the petitioners, with his usual
fairness, accepts that s. 28A in terms does not apply to the case of the
petitioners for more than one reason. In the first place, they do not
belong to that class of society for whose benefit the provision is in-
H
M. RAM v. STATE OF HARYANA [SEN, J.[ 663

tended and meant i.e. inarticulate and poor people who by reason of A
their poverty and ignorance have f~iled to take advantage of the right
of reference to the civil court under s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894. On the contrary, the petitioners belong to an affluent class, and
they are not pcison·s who have been deprived of property without
payment of compensatfon. The petitioners· had all applied for refer-
B
ence under s. 18 of the Act and the civil court by adopting a different
basis for computation, namely, treating the land to be potential build- ·
ing site., substantially enhanced the amount of compensation. On ap-
peal, there was forther enhancement by the High Court. The petitioners
have withdrawn large sums of money at each stage. For instance, the
petitioner Mewa Ram withdrew on February 6, 1976 consequent upon
the award of the Land Acquisition Collector Rs.l,19,000, an addi- c
. tional sum of Rs.28,938.20p. on March 23; 1978 after the judgment of
the learned Additional District Judge, and Rs.2,75,105.42p. after the
judgment of the High Court between December 11, 1981 and February ·
13, 1982. The judgment of the High Court not having been appealed
from has admittedly become· final. Evidently, the petitioners. felt
D
satisfied with the enhanced amount of compensation as awarded by the
High Court@ Rs.12.25 per square yard because they did not apply for
grant of special ,leave under Art. 136 of .the Constitution' for more than
three years. Merely because this Court in.the two cases of Paltu Singh
and Nand Kishore enhanced the rate of compensation to Rs·.17.50 per
square yard, could not furnish a ground for condonation of delay un,
E
der s. 5 of the Limitation Act.

Furthermore, there is no provision in the Act apart from s. 28A
for reopening of an award which has become final and condusive'. No
doubt s. 28A now provides for the redetermination of the amount of,
compensation provided the conditions laid down therein are-fulfilled.
For ~uch redetermination, the forum is the Collector and the applica-
tion has to be made before him within thirty days from the date of the
award, and the right is restricted to persons who had not applied for
reference under s. 18 of the Act. If these conditions were satisfied, the
petitioners could have availed of the remedy provided under s. 28A of
the Act. lff that event, s. 25 would ensure to their benefit. Any other
G
view would lead to disasterous consequences not Intended oy the
Legislature.

The decision in Madras Port Trust's case is clearly distinguish-
able. The question involved there was as to the right of refund of the
amount of wharfage,. demurrage and transit charges which admittedly
H
664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 3 S.C.R.

A became exigible. The Court granted special leave on the condition that
the Madras Port Trust .would refund the amount irrespective of the
result of the appeal. At the hearing the Court declined to go into the
question whether t~e claim of the trader for such refund was barred by
s. 110 of the Madras Port Trust Act, 1905, and added:
B
"The plea of limitation based on this section is one which
the court always looks upon with disfavour and it is un-
fortunate that a public authority like the Port Trust should,
in all morality and justice, take up such a plea to defeat a
just claim of the citizen."

c The Court then said:

"It is high time that governments and public authorities
adopt the practice of. not relying upon technical pleas for
the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of citizens and
do what is fair and just to the citizens."
D
This is mere expression of a hope and does not lay down any universal
rule of application that the Government is prevented from pleading
limitation ·as a bar. On the other hand, the Court itself observed in the
Madras Port Trust's case that 'if a government or a public authority
takes up a technical plea, the Court has to decide it and if the plea is
E
well-founded it has to be upheld by· the Court'. Obviously, the peti-
tioners cannot plead their own )aches as a ground sufficient for condo-
nation of delay.

There is no reason for us to grant special leave in these cases
whi~h are hopelessly barred by time and there is no justification for
F
condonation of inordinate delay.

The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed with costs.

M.L.A. Petitions dismissed.