Holding

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, holding that no sufficient cause was shown and the false statements in the condonation application warranted its rejection.

Summary

The appellants, owners of land acquired for a public project, obtained a compensation award which was later enhanced by a Reference Court. The State Government communicated its decision to acquiesce in the enhanced award to the beneficiary (respondent No.1), who nevertheless failed to file an appeal within the prescribed limitation period. After a delay of 1,724 days, the beneficiary filed appeals together with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of the delay, making false statements that it was unaware of the award. The High Court condoned the delay, but the Supreme Court held that the beneficiary’s false averments and lack of any sufficient cause warranted rejection of the condonation application. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court order and allowed the appeals, emphasizing that delay defeats equity and that discretion to condone must be exercised judicially, not arbitrarily.

Issues considered

The High Court correctly exercised its discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone a delay of 1,724 days.
Whether the beneficiary’s false statements in the condonation application constitute a ground to reject the application outright.
Whether the beneficiary showed sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal.
Whether public policy and equity considerations can override the strict application of the limitation period.

Legislation cited

Limitation Act, 1963s. 18, s. 5

Subjects

Limitation ActSection 5condonation of delayland acquisitionpublic policyequityappealfalse statementsjudicial discretion

Judgment

[2008] 15 S.C.R. 135
,,..
PUNDLIK JALAM PATIL (D) BY LRS. A
v.
EXE. ENG. JALGAON MEDIUM PROJECT & ANR.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6414-17of 2008)
NOVEMBER 3, 2008
B
[S.H. KAPADIA AND 8. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.]

Limitation Act, 1963; s. 5:

Land Acquisition - Award by Special Land Acquisition c
Officer- Reference - Compensation enhanced by Reference
Court - Appeal against with application for condonation of
delay, filing of, by beneficiary - Delay condoned by High
Court - Challenge to - Held: Decision of State Government
to acquiesce in the judgment/award of Reference Court D
,~. enhancing compensation communicated to all including
respondent No. 1 - Respondent No. 1 did not initiate any steps
for filing appeals in time - In the application for condonation
of delay incorrect averments have been made - A party taking
a false stand to get rid of bar of limitation should not be
E
encouraged - Where delay was condoned by the Court
without sufficient cause being shown by the party, such order
of the Court susceptible for correction by the Superior Court
- In the instant case, High Court exercised its discretion on
_.\--
wrong principles and erred in condoning the inordinate delay
without showing any sufficient cause - Hence, impugned order F
cannot be sustained and set aside - Appeal - Delay in filing

-
/
of.

Belated claims - Consideration of, on ground of equity
- Held: Delay defeats equity - Court helps those who are G
.....,, vigilant - Equity.

Limitation vis-a-vis public policy - Discussed.
• State Government of Maharashtra, at the instance of
135 H
136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.

I :¥'
A respondent No.1, the beneficiary, had acquired the land
belonging to appellants. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer passed an award fixing. certain amount of
compensation in favour of appellants in lieu of
acquisitioning of their land. Appellants filed Reference
B Petition impleading respondent No.1 as a party. The
Reference Court enhanced the compensation. The State
Government took a decision to acquiesce in the decision
of the Reference Court and communicated it to all
concerned including respondent No.1. The Special Land
c Acquisition Officer, after lapse of one year, requested the
State Government to review its decision and grant
permission to them to file the appeal. The State
Government reiterated its earlier decision. Later,
respondent No.1, the beneficiary, preferred appeals along
with applications to· condone the delay of 1724 days. In
D
the meantime, appellants executed the decree and ),
realized the amount of compensation as deposited by
respondent No.1. The High Court condoned the delay in
filing the ~ppeals. Hence the present appeals.
E Appellants, inter alia, contended that the jurisdiction
vested in the courts to consider whether sufficient cause
has been shown to condone delay is no doubt
discretionary but the discretion must be exercised
judicially and not in an arbitrary manner; and that there j--
F is no explanation whatsoever forthcoming as to why
respondent being beneficiary could not have preferred
the appeals if it was aggrieved by the award passed by
the Reference Court. r
'
Respondent, the beneficiary, submitted that the High
G Court in its discretion condoned the delay in filing the
appeal and even if it is an erroneous one this Court .,,,...
should not interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India; that the Reference
Court granted exorbitant amount towards compensation
H
PUNDLIK JALAM PATIL (D) BY LRS. v. EXE. ENG. 137
JALGAON MEDIUM PROJECT & ANR.

""' thereby adversely affecting the public revenue and the A
said circumstance itself requires consideration of
appeals on merits; that there were no mala fides on part
of the beneficiary of acquisition in not preferring the
appeal within the period of limitation.
B
Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1. The Law & Judiciary Department of the
State Government within the period of 15 days from the
date of the award of the Reference Court communicated
its decision to acquiesce in the decision of the Reference c
Court and communicated the same to all the concerned
including the beneficiary of the acquisition; that it is not
the case of the respondent that he did not receive the said
communication. Having received the commu-nication,
J... the respondent did not act in the matter and initiated any D
steps for filing the appeals if it was really aggrieved by
the decision of the Reference Court. Undoubtedly, the
respondent made totally incorrect statement in the
application filed in the High Court. This Court express its
reservation as to the manner in which a public authority E
conducted itself in its anxiety to somehow get the relief
from the court. [Para 11] [145-G)

-\ 1.2. Incorrect statement made in the application
seeking cor:adonation of delay itself is sufficient to reject
the application without any further inquiry as to whether F
the averments made in the application reveal sufficient
cause to condone the delay. That a party taking a false
stand to get rid of the bar of limitation should not be
--4
encouraged to get any premium on the falsehood on his
part by condoning delay. [Para 11] [145-G] G
....
Binod Bihari Singh v. Union of India, (1993] 1 SCC 572,
relied on.

1.3. It is true that the power to condone the delay H
138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.

-~
A rests with the court in which the application was filed
beyond time and decide whether there is sufficient cause
s_hown for condoning the delay and ordinarily the
superior court may not interfere with such discretion -
even· if some error is tO be found in the discretiQn so
B exercised by the court but where there is no sufficient-
cause shown for condoning the delay but the delay was
condoned, it is a case of discretion not being exercised --)---

judicially and the order becomes vulnerable and
susceptible for its correction by the superior court. The
c High Court having found that the respondent in its
application made incorrect submission that it had no
knowledge of the award passed by the Reference Court
ought to have refused to exercise its discretion. The High
Court exercised its discretion on wrong principles. In that
view of the matter, the exercise of discretion in the
D
manner done by the High Court cannot be sustained. )
[Para 12) [147-E-G]

2.1. Respondent knew the exact grounds on which
~· - ..appeals could have been preferred. The law will presume
E that it knew of its right to file appeal against the award.
Everybody is presumed to know law. It was its duty to
prefer appeals before the court for cons_ideration which
it did not. There is no explanation forthcoming in this ~

'
regard. The evidence on record suggest neglect of its I
F own right for long time in preferring appeals. The court
cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the -
ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The court helps
those who are vigilant and 'do not slumber over their ,
rights.' [Para 14) [149-A-C]
G .a.-
2.2. The respondent beneficiary of the acquisition did
v
'not initiate any steps whatsoever before expiry of
limitation and no circumstances are placed before the
court that steps were taken to file appeals but it was not
possible to file the appeals within time. [Para 17] [149-G]
H
PUNDLIK JALAM PATIL (D) BY LRS. v. EXE. ENG. 139
JALGAON MEDIUM PROJECT & ANR
:a. Ajit Singh Thakur Singh and Anr. v. State of Gujarat, A
[1981] 1 sec 495, relied on.

2.3. In the case of N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy,
this Court held that the law of limitation fixes a life span
for every legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury
B
suffered. Unending period for launching the remedy may
-.,- lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy.
The law of Limitation is thus founded on public policy.
The decision does not lay down that a lethargic litigant
can leisurely choose his own time in preferring appeal or
application as the case may be. On the other hand, in the
c
said judgment it is said that court should not forget the
opposite party altogether. [Para 18] [150-8-D]

N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, [1998] 7 SCC 123,
relied on. D
~
2.4. In the case of Ram/al and Ors v. Rewa Coalfields
Ltd. this Court held that even if the sufficient cause has
been shown, a party is not entitled to the condonation of
delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a
E
sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise
of the discretionaryjurisdiction vested in the court by
section 5 of the Act. This aspect of the matter naturally
introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it
~
is at this stage the diligence of the party of its bona tides
may fall for consideration." [Para 19] [150-H; 151-A-B] F

Ram/al and Ors. v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR (1962) SC
361, relied on.

•.-'1 2.5. On the facts and in the circumstances, this Court G
is of the opinion that the respondent beneficiary was not
diligent in availing the remedy of appeal. The averments
made in the application seeking condonation of delay in
filing appeals do not show any acceptable cause much
less sufficient cause to exercise courts' discretion in its
H
140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S. C.R.

A favour. [Pa-ra 1'91 [151.:CJ
Union of India v. Sube Ram and Ors., (1991] 9 SCC 69
distinguished .

. 2.6. Statutes of limitation are sometimes described as
8 statutes of peace. An unlimited and perpetual thre·at of
lilttlfation creates insecurity and uncertainty. However,
some kind of limitation is essential for public order. [Para
231 (152-C]
C Union oflndia v. Balbir Singh and Ors., [2000] 10 SCC
611, referred to.
Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Ed., Vol.28, p.266, para
605, referred to.
D 2.7. It needs no restatement at our hands that the >.
obje~ct for fixing time limit for litigation is based on public
policy fixing a life span for legal remedy for the purpose
of genetai welfare. They are meant to see that .the parties
do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal
E. remedies pi'ornptly. [Para 23] [152-F-G]

Rajender Singh and Ors. v. Santa Singh and Ors., (1973]
2 sec ids and Motir;hand v. Munshi, [1969] 2 SCR 824,
·referred to.

F 3.1. Public· interest undoubtedly is a paramount
corisiderat·ion in exercising the courts discretion
wherever conferred upon it by the relevant statutes.
Pursuing stale claims and multiplicity of proceedings in
no manrter sut>-:..serves public ·interest. [Pata 2'4j t152-li;
G 15S•A]
3.2. Prompt and timely payment of compensation to
the larid loosers facilitating their tetiabilitation/
resettlement is equally an integral part ·of public policy.
H (Para 24] (153.:A•B]
PUNDLIK JALAM PATIL (D) BY LRS. v. EXE. ENG. 141
- ....; JALGAON MEDIUM PROJECT & ANR.

3.3. Public interest demands that the State or the A
beneficiary of acquisition, as the case may be, should not
be allowed to indulge in any act to unsettle the settled
legal rights accrued in law by resorting to avoidable
litigation unless the claimants are guilty of deriving
benefit which tey are otherwise not entitled in any B
fraudulent manner. [Para 24) [153-8-C]
·~
3.4. One should not forget the basic fact that what is
acquired is not the land but the livelihood of the land
loosers. These public interest parameters ought to be
kept in mind by the courts while exercising the discretion
c
dealing with the application filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act. Dragging the land loosers to courts of law
years after the termination of legal proceedings would not
serve any public interest. Settled rights cannot be lightly
~ interfered with by condoning inordinate delay without D
there being any proper explanation of such delay on the
ground of involvement of public revenue. It serves no
public interest. [Para 24] [153-C-D-E)
4.1. It is true when the State and its instrumentalities E
are the applicants seeking condonation of delay they may
be entitled to certain amount of latitude but the law of
limitation is same for citizen and for Governmental
~ authorities. Limitation Act does not provide for a different
period to the government in filing appeals or applications F
as such. It would be a different matter where the
Government makes out a case where public interest was
shown to have suffered owing to acts of fraud or
collusion on the part of its officers or agents and where
the officers were clearly at cross purposes with it. [Para G
\'
25) [153-E-F]
~
_.....-
4.2. The High Court gravely erred and exercised its
discretion to condone the inordinate delay of 1724 days
though no sufficient cause has been shown by the
applicants. It is for that reason, the decision of the High H
142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.
"i"'"

A Court is ~et aside~ [Para 26] (154-B]

Case Law Reference:
(199311 sec s12 · relied on Para 11 ·
[1981] 1 sec 495
.,.
B relied on Para 15
·-
[1998] 1 sec 123 relied on Para 18 '

AIR (1962) SC 361 relied on Para 19
r
[19971 9 sec 69 distinguished Para 20
c '
~

c20001 10 sec 611. referred to Para 21
(197312 sec 10s · referred to Para 23 . '
[1969] 2 SCR 824 referred to Para 23
D ~
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
6414-6417 of 2008.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 22/23.8.2007
of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at
E Aurangabad in C.A. Nos. 8561/05 in F.A.(St.) No. 4014/05,
8673/05 in F.A. (St.) No. 4009/05, 8674/05 in F.A. (St.) No.
4012/05 & 8675/05 in 4002/05.
Soli J. Sorabjee, Raghuvir Patil, Gautam Godara and >--
F Gopal Balwant Sathe for the Appellants.

V.A. Mohta, Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Naresh Kumar,
Mahesh Deshmukh, Sanjay V. Kharde and Asha G. Nair for the
. Respondents. r·

G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
..,.....
B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. 1. Leave granted. ~.-

2. These appeals, by Special Leave, are directed against
the common judgment and order dated 22/23.08.2007 of the
H High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad allowing the
PUNDLIK JALAM PATIL (D) BY LRS. v. EXE. ENG. JALGAON .143
MEDIUM PROJECT & ANR. [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]
'"' applications filed by the first respondent under Section 5 of the A
Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act')
to condone the delay of 1724 days in filing appeals against the
award passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon in
land acquisition cases. The High Court accepted the
explanation offered by the respondent no. 1 herein for the 8
apparent inordinate delay in filing the appeals against the award
r"
of the Reference Court.

3. Brief facts needed for disposal of these appeals are as
under:
c
4. The lands belonging to the appellants were acquired at
the instance of the respondent for a public purpose under the
draft Notification published in Maharashtra Government Gazette
on 06.03.1997. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper
Tapi Project (Hatnur), Jalgaon passed the award dated D
"' 31.3.1999. The appellant sought for reference of the said award
under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement of the
compensation. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Jalgaon disposed of the references vide award/judgment dated
9.3.2000 enhancing the compensation over and above the E
amount fixed in the award passed by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer. Be it noted, not only the Special Land
Acquisition Officer but the first respondent herein was also
_, impleaded as a party respondent in the land acquisition
reference case. The Executive Engineer, Medium Project F
Division, Jalgaon filed appearance through its counsel but did
not lead any evidence though a written statement opposing the
claim of enhancement was filed in the Reference Court. On
24.03.2000 the Government Pleader, Jalgaon submitted report
and expressed his opinion that it is a fit case for filing the appeal G
on the grounds stated in the report itself. The Law and Judiciary
Department took decision on 13.4.2000 to 'acquiesce in the
decision' of the Reference Court and communicated the same
to all the concerned including the first respondent herein who
is the beneficiary of the acquisition.
H
144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS · [2008] 15 S.C.R.
-r· '
A 5. It is required to notice that neither the Special Land
Acquisition Officer nor the beneficiary of the acquisition raised
little finger and objected to the decision taken in the matter. The
Special Land Acquisition Officer after about one year vide its
letter dated 31.5.2001 addressed the Principal Secretary to
B Law & Judiciary Department, Government of Maharashtra for
reviewing the decision taken regarding acquiesce in the
decision of Reference Court in the matter. The government
reiterated its decision and expressed its view that under the
rules the Joint Secretary Law & Judiciary Department was
c competent to take appropriate decision in the matter on behalf
of the Government and found no reason to review the decision
so taken by its Joint Secretary. The Government accordingly
informed not only the Special Land Acquisition Officer but also
the first respondent that more than one year had elapsed and
th~re were no grounds for condoning the delay in filing the
D _)'-
appeals.

6. The beneficiary of the acquisition who is contesting the
appeals before us did not take any steps whatsoever after
receiving the said communication until 25.2.2005 on which date
E the appeals were preferred along with the applications to
condone the delay of 1724 days except indulging in some
correspondence long after expiry of limitation. It is required to
notice that the beneficiary of the acquisition made ~
·j-
arrangements for the deposit of the decreetal amount to be
F deposited by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in the
Reference Court in May, 2001 itself. Some further amounts
towards interest etc. were_ of course not deposited. The
appellant executed the decree and realised the entire money
deposited into the court.
G
7. The High Court having considered the applications filed >-
under Section 5 of Limitation Act condoned the inordinate delay
of 1724 days in filing the appeals. Hence these appeals by
special leave.

H 8. Shri Soli J. Sorabjee, learned senior counsel appearing
PUNDLIK JALAM PATIL (D) BY LRS. v. EXE. ENG. JALGAON 145
MEDIUM PROJECT & ANR. [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]
)-.,-,
on behalf of the appellant submitted that the approach adopted A
by the High Court in deciding the applications is totally
erroneous and cannot be sustained. The jurisdiction vested in
the courts to consider whether any sufficient cause has been
shown to condone delay is no doubt discretionary but the
discretion must be exercised judicially and not in any arbitrary B
manner. It was further contended that the averments made in
y the applications filed by the respondent herein seeking
condonation of delay in preferring the appeal is full of patently
false averments. On this. ground alone the applications ought
to have been dismissed. There is no explanation whatsoever c
forthcoming as to why respondent being beneficiary could not
have preferred the appeals if it was aggrieved by the award
passed by the Reference Court.

9. Shri V.A. Mehta, learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the beneficiary of the acquisition submitted that the D
High Court in its discretion condoned the delay in filing the
appeal and even if it is an erroneous one this Court should not
interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India. It was submitted that the Reference Court
granted exorbitant amount towards compensation thereby E
adversely effecting the public revenue and the said
circumstance itself requires consideration of appeals on merits.
The learned senior counsel submitted that the High Court rightly
---«. intervened in order to protect public interest. It was also
submitted that there were no ma/a fides on part of the F
beneficiary of acquisition in not preferring the appeal within the
period of limitation.
'

10. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival
submissions made during the course of hearing of these
G
appeals.
-;
11 . Whether the respondent made incorrect statement in
the application seeking condonation of delay?

"There is no dispute whatsoever that the respondent being H
.146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.

~
A the beneficiary of the acquisition has been duly impleaded
as a party respondent in the reference cases as is required
in law. It not only appeared in the matter through a properly
instructed counsel but also filed its written statement
opposing the claim for enhancement of compensation but
B did not choose to lead any evidence whatsoever. In the
application filed in the High Court the plea taken by the
respondent is as under: --r-
"The applicant submits that, alt~ough the applicant being
Acquiring Body, was arrayed as opponent in the said
c reference, the opponent no. 4 herein (Original Opponent
No. 1) S.L.A.O. or his subordinate contested the said
reference by filing written statement. Therefore, this
applicant was unaware about the stand taken by S.L.A.0.
as well as the impugned judgment and award."
D
This averment in the application on the face of it is totally >
incorrect. The· Law & Judiciary Department as early as on
13.4.2000 i.e. to say within the period of 15 days from the date
of the award of the Reference Court communicated its decision
E to acquiesce in the decision of the Reference Court and
communicated the same to all the .concerned including the
beneficiary of the acquisition. It is not the case that the
Executive Engineer did not receive the said communication.
Having received the said communication the respondent did
F not act in the matter and initiated any steps for filing the appeals
if it was really aggrieved by the decision of the Reference Court.
~t
There is no doubt whatsoever in our mind that the respondent
,,·'
1·

made totally incorrect statement in the application filed in the i'

High Court. We express our reservation as to the manner in
which a puolic authority conducted itself in its anxiety to
G
somehow get the relief from the court ..In our considered opinion
incorrect statement made in the application seeking ':>----
coridonation of delay itself is sufficient to reject the application
without any further inquiry as to whether the averments made
in the application reveal sufficient cause to condone the delay.
H
PUNDLIK .JALAM PATIL (D) BY LRS. v. EXE. ENG. JALGAON 147
MEDIUM PROJECT & ANR. [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]
~.
Tnat a party taking a false stand to get rid of the bar of limitation A
should not be encouraged to get any premium on the falsehood
on his part by condoning delay. [See: [1993] 1 SCC 572].

12. Whether the High Court properly exercised its
discretion?
B
The High Court in its order having noticed the relevant fact
,,,_. in categorical terms held that there was no substance in the plea
that it was unaware about the judgment and award passed by
the Reference Court since it was a party before the Reference
Court and contested the matter. The High Court also found that c
the decision of the Joint Secretary to acquiesce was
communicated to the beneficiary of the acquisition and
therefore, its plea about the unawareness of the award and
decision taken by the Government cannot be accepted. The
High Court in its order emphatically rejected the ground raised D
--<...._ by the respondent in that regard. In such view of the matter can
it be said that the High Court properly exercised its jurisdiction?
It is true that the power to condone the delay rests with the court
in which the application was filed beyond time and decide
whether there is sufficient cause for condoning the delay and E
ordinarily the superior court may not interfere with such
discretion even if some error is to be found in the discretion so
exercised by the court but where there is no sufficient cause for
condoning the delay but the delay was condoned, it is a case
--'(
of discretion not being exercised judicially and the order F
becomes vulnerable and susceptible for its correction by the
superior court. The High Court having found that the respondent
in its application made incorrect submission that it had no
knowledge of the award passed by the Reference Court ought
to have refused to exercise its discretion. The High Court
G
exercised its discretion on wrong principles. In that view of the
matter we cannot sustain the exercise of discretion in the
manner done by the High Court.

13. Whether the respondent had satisfied the court that it
had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeals within the H
148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.

A prescribed time?

Section 5 of the Limitaj:ion Act provides for extension of
prescribed period of limitation in certain cases and confers
jurisdiction upon the court to admit any application or any
appeal after the prescribed period if it is satisfied that the
8
appellant or applicant had sufficient cause for not preferring
such appeal or application within the prescribed period .

. . 14. In the present casethe Reference Court passed the
award under SeCtion 18 of the. Act on 09.03.2.000. On
C 13.04.2000 itself the Government took decision not to prefer
any appeal against the decree and award passed by the
Reference Court and accordingly communicated its decision
to all the concerned including the respondent. The Government
vide its order dated 21.05.2001 refused to review its decision
D and accordingly informed the same to the respondent
beneficiary of acquisition. The respondent beneficiary in its
application seeking condonation of delay refers to the letter
dated 19.11.2003 issued by the Secretary, Irrigation
Department, directing it to obtain legal advice from an
E advocate to initiate appropriate proceedings. The respondent
instead of acting in the matter once again had chosen to
address S.L.A.O. vide letter dated 06.02.2004 with a request
to challenge the impugned judgment and award of the
Reference Court. The same request was made by repeating
F .reminders upto 12.07.2004. On 18.05.2004, the respondent
beneficiary addressed a letter to the Collector requesting him
to direct the Land Acquisition Officer to prefer an appeal. This
correspondence continued up to 21.06.2004. Thereafter, the
application along with the appeal seeking condonation of delay
G was filed on 25th February, 2005.

The applicant having set the machinery in motion cannot
abandon it to resume it after number of years because the
authority with whom it had entered into correspondence did not
heed to its request to file appeals. The question is : Can the
H respondent/applicant in this case take advantage of its
PUNDLIK JALAM PATIL (D) BY LRS. v. EXE. ENG. JALGAON 149
_MEDIUM PROJECT & ANR. [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]
..-.,
negligence, after lapse of number of years, of the decision of A
Government? It knew the exact grounds on which appeals could
have been preferred. The law will presume that it knew of its
right to file appeal against the award. Everybody is presumed
to know law. It was its duty to prefer appeals before the court
for consideration which it did not. There is no explanation B
forthcoming in this regard. The evidence on record suggest
....... neglect of its own right for long time in preferring appeals. The
court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground
of equity. Delay defeats equity. The court helps those who are
vigilant and 'do not slumber over their rights.' c
The question for consideration is whether the averments
disclosed any sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay
of 1724 days in filing the appeals.

- ~--
15. In Ajit Singh Thakur Singh and Anr. v. State of D
Gujarat, [1981] 1 SCC 495, this court observed :

"It is true that a party is entitled to wait until the last day of
limitation for filing an appeal. But when it allows limitation
to expire and pleads sufficient cause for not filing the
E
appeal earlier, the sufficient cause must establish that
because of some event or circumstance arising before
limitation expired it was not possible to file the appeal
within time. No event or circumstance arising after the
--'(_ expiry of limitation can constitute sufficient cause."
F
(Emphasis supplied)

16. This judgment squarely applies to the facts in hand.

17. The respondent beneficiary of the acquisition did not
G
initiate any steps whatsoever before expiry of limitation and no
circumstances are placed before the court that steps were
taken to file appeals but it was not possible to file the appeals
within time .
...
' 18. Shri Mehta, learned senior counsel relying on the H
150 . .SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.

~
A decision of this court in N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy,
[1998] 7 sec 123, submitted that length of delay is no matter,
acceptability of explanation is the only criterion. It was submitted
that if the explanation offered does not smack of mala tides or
it is not put forth as part of dilatory tactics the court must show
B utmost consideration to the suitor. The very said decision upon
which reliance has been placed holds that the law of limitation
· fix~s a life span for every leg_al remedy for the redress of the
~
legal injury suffered. Unending period for launching the remedy
may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy.
c The law of Limitation is thus founded on public policy. The
decision does not lay down that a lethargic litigant can leisurely
choose his own time in preferring appeal or application as the
case may be. On the other hand, in the said judgment it is said
that court should not forget the opposite party altogether. It is
observed:
·D ,,__
_;..>'
"It is enshrined in the maxim interest republicae up sit finis
litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to
litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the
rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties
E do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy
promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept
alive for a legislatively fixed period of time."

19. In Ram/a/ and Ors. v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR (1962)
F SC 361, this court held that: "in construing Section 5 of the
j-

Limitation Act; it is relevant to bear in mind two important
considerations. The first consideration is that the expiration of
period of limitation prescribed for making an appeal gives rise
to right in favour of the decree holder to treat the decree as
binding between the parties and this legal right which has
G
accrued to the decree holder by lapse of time should not be
light heartedly disturbed. The other consideration which cannot r
be ignored is that if sufficient cause of excusing delay is shown
discretion is given to the court to condone the delay and admit
the appeal. 'It is further necessary to emphasis that even if the
H
PUNDLIK JALAM PATIL (D) BY LRS. v. EXE. ENG. JALGAON 151
MEDIUM PROJECT & ANR. [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]
.....,
sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the A
condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof
of a sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise
of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the court by section
5. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the
consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage the B
diligence of the party of its bona fides may fall for
,.... consideration." On the facts and in the circumstances, we are
of the opinion that the respondent beneficiary was not diligent
in availing the remedy of appeal. The averments made in the
application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeals do c
not show any acceptable cause much less sufficient cause to
exercise courts' discretion in its favour.

20. Learned senior counsel for the respondent also placed
reliance upon the decision of this court in Union of India v. Sube
- ~
Ram and Ors., [1997] 9 SCC 69. This court condoned delay
of 3379 days in preferring the appeals by Special Leave. The
D

said decision is mostly confined to the facts of that case and
does not lay down any law as such requiring us to make any
further analysis of the judgment.
E
21. Submissions based on public interest and involvement
of public money:

The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the
4 decision of this court in Union of India v. Balbir Singh and Ors.,
[2000] 1O sec 611 in support of his submission that the courts F
should be liberal in condoning the delay particularly whenever
public interest and public money is involved. All that the said
decision states is that in the circumstances of the case the court
was inclined to condone the delay, particularly, "because it is
in the public interest as public money is involved." The facts are G
not evident from the judgment and as to what were those public
interest parameters that were taken into consideration to
condone the delay in filing appeals.

22. Basically the laws of Lirr.itation are founded on public H
152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.

,-'f/I '
A policy. In Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Ed., Vol.28, p. 266,
para 605, the policy of the Limitation Acts is laid down as
follows:

"The courts have expressed at least three different
reasons supporting the existence of statutes of limitation,
8
namely, (i) that long dormant claims have more of cruelty r
than justice in them, (ii) that a defendant might have lost
""<'
the evidence to dispute the stated claim, (iii) that persons
with good causes of actions should pursue them with
reasonable diligence."
c
23. Statutes of limitation are sometimes described as
'statutes of peace'. An unlimited and perpetual threat of
limitation creates insecurity and uncertainty; some kind of
limitation is essential for public order. This court in Rajender
D Singh and Ors. v. Santa Singh and Ors. [1973) 2 SCC 705 ,,
has observed : "the object of law of Limitation is to prevent -""'

disturbance and deprivation of what may have been acquired
in equity and justice by long enjoyment or what may have been
lost by a party's own inaction, negligence or laches". In
E Motichand v. Munshi [1969] 2 SCR 824, this court observed
that this principle is based on the maxim "interest republicae
ut sit finis litum, that is, the interest of the State requires that
there should be end to litigation but at the same time law of
Limitation are a means to ensuring private justice suppressing
)--
F fraud and perjury, quickening diligence and preventing
oppression.

It needs no restatement at our hands that the object for
fixing time limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing a -,,
life span for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare.
G They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory
tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his /-~

jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of
the vigilant and not of the sleepy.
24. Public interest undoubtedly is a paramount
H
PUNDLIK JALAM PATIL (D) BY LRS. v. EXE. ENG. JALGAON 153
MEDIUM PROJECT & ANR. [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]

consideration in exercising the courts discreiion wherever A
conferred upon it by the relevant statutes. Pursuing stale claims
and multiplicity of proceedings in no manner sub-serves public
interest. Prompt and timely payment of compensation to the
land loosers facilitating their rehabilitation/resettlement is
equally an integral part of public policy. Public interest demands B
that the State or the beneficiary of acquisition, as the case may
be, should not be allowed to indulge in any act to unsettle the
settled legal rights accrued in law by resorting to avoidable
litigation unless the claimants are guilty of deriving benefit to
which they are otherwise not entitled, in any fraudulent' manner. c
One should not forget the basic fact that what is acquired is
not the land but the livelihood of the land loosers. These p1.1blic
interest parameters ought to be kept in mind by the courts while
exercising the discretion dealing with the application filed under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Dragging the land loosers to
0
courts of law years after the termination of legal proceedings
would not serve any public interest. Settled rights cannot be
lightly interfered with by condoning inordinate delay without there
being any proper explanation of such delay on the ground of
involvement of public revenue. It serves no public interest.
E
25. It is true when the State and its instrumentalities are
the applicants seeking condonation of delay they may be
entitled to certain amount of latitude but the law of limitation is
same for citizen and for Governmental authorities. Limitation
Act does not provide for a different period to the government F
in filing appeals or applications as such. It would.be a different
matter where the Government makes out a case where public
interest was shown to have suffered owing to· acts of fraud or
collusion on the part of its officers or agents and where the
officers were clea·r1y at cross purposes with it. In a given case G
if any such facts are pleaded or proved they cannot be
excluded from consideration and those factors may go into the
judicial verdict.In the present case, no such facts are pleaded
and proved though a feeble attempt by the learned counsel for
the respondent was made to suggest collusion and fraud but
H
154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {2008] 15 S.C.R.

A without any basis. We cannot entertain the submission made
across the Bar without there.being any proper foundation in the.
pleadings. ·
. . . ' .

26. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the High Court
gravely erred and exercised its discretion to condone the
B inordinate delay of 1724 days though no sufficient cause has
been shown by the applicants. It is for that reason, we interfere ......
with the decision of the High Court and set aside the same.
The appeals are accordingly allowed without any orders as to
costs.
c S.K.S .. Appeals allowed.