http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: THE SPECIAL TEHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISTION, KERALA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: K.V. AYISUMMA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       23/07/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (7)   204        1996 SCALE  (5)548

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This appeal  by special  leave arise  from the order of the High  Court of  Kerala dated  July 27,  1992 made in CRP No.695/92. The  admitted facts are that in an acquisition of the land  for public  purpose, the  reference Court  by  its award and  decree dated  March 31,  1989  had  enhanced  the compensation. The appellant had filed an application on July 29, 1991  lo review  the award and decree. There was a delay in filing  the application The learned subordinate judge had condoned the  delay. Against the said order of condoning The delay the respondent has gone in revision to the High Court. The High  Court in the impugned order Set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge. Thus this appeal by special leave.      It  is   now  settled  taw  that  when  the  delay  was occasioned at  the behest  of the  Government, it  would  be very  difficult   to  explain   the  day  today  delay.  The transaction of  the business  of the  Government being  done leisurely by  officers who  had no  or evince  no   personal interest  at  different  levels.  No  one  takes    personal responsibility in  processing the matters  expeditiously. As a fact  at several stages they take  their own time to reach a decision. Even in spite of  pointing at the delay, they do not take expeditious  action for ultimate decision in filing the appeal.  This case  is one of such instances. It is true that   Section 5 of the Limitation Act envisages explanation of the  delay to  the  satisfaction  of  the  Court  and  in matters of  Limitation Act  made no distinction between  the State and  the citizen.  Nonetheless  adoption  of    strict standard of  proof leads  to grave  miscarriage of    public justice. it  would result  in  public  mischief  by  skilful management of  delay in,  the process  of filing the appeal. The approach  of  the  Court  would  be  pragmatic  but  not pedandic. Under  those circumstances,  the Subordinate Judge has rightly  adopted correct  approach and  had condoned the delay without insisting upon explaining every day’s delay Sn filing the  review  application in the light of the law laid

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

down by this  Court. The High Court was not right in setting aside the order. Delay was rightly condoned.      The appeal is accordingly allowed. The case is remitted to the  reference Court  for disposal of the review petition in accordance with law. No costs.