There was a delay of 3671 days, in filing of appeal, on the ground that the villagers entrusted relevant papers to one co-villager, well conversant with the court proceedings and the said person had taken steps to engage an advocate at Hyderabad and the said person informed that the appeal was filed and left for Kuwait to eke out his livelihood. Thus, the appellants\/claimants were under the impression that the appeal has been filed. The claimants have further stated that when they inquired the said person, he informed them that he went to the house\u00a0\u00a0 of the Advocate and he\u00a0 learnt that the\u00a0 said Advocate is no\u00a0 more and\u00a0 expired\u00a0 in 2012 itself and on enquiry with the clerk of the said advocate, he learnt that\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 no appeal has been filed and this has caused a delay of 3671 days in filing the appeal. The High Court rejected the explanation given by the appellants on the ground that there are contradictions between the affidavit filed by the said person and the stand of the claimants and being not satisfied with the reason for the\u00a0 delay of 3671 days in preferring the appeal.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
The issue was whether the lower authority could decline the benefit available to the appellant only due to the reason of delay of 3671days in filing an appeal?<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
It was observed by the Court that when the concerned court has exercised its discretion either condoning or declining to condone the delay, normally the superior court will not interfere in exercise of such discretion. The true guide is whether the litigant has acted with due diligence.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Since the Appellants\/claimants are the agriculturists whose lands were acquired and when similar situated agriculturists were given a higher rate of compensation, there is no reason to decline the same to the Appellants. Merely on the ground<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
| Allied Laws \u2013 35. Limitation Act, 1963 |<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
of delay such benefit cannot be denied to the Appellants. Accordingly, the delay was condoned. (CA No. 9287 of 2017 (SLP (C) No. 14839 of 2015 19.07.2017)<\/p>\n
Editorial<\/em><\/strong>: Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court and High Courts have been, consistently taking, a pragmatic stand with respect to the condonation of delay is concerned. Especially, when non-condonation is going to adversely affect the inherent or vested rights of the citizen.<\/p>\n \u201cI look only to the good qualities of men. Not being faultless myself, I won\u2019t presume to probe in to the faults of others.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n – Mahatma Gandhi<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Limitation Act, 1963
\nS.5: Extension of prescribed period in certain cases – Sufficient cause – Condonation of delay \u2013 Delay of 3671 days – No reason to decline benefit merely due to delay in filing of appeal when in similar cases benefit was derived by similar concerns [S. 18, S. 54, Land Acquisition Act, 1894]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13185","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allied-laws"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-3qF","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13185","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13185"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13185\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13186,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13185\/revisions\/13186"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13185"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13185"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13185"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}