Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.24 seconds)Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors on 19 February, 1987
6. That, having been said we deem it essential to consider
the plethora of Judgments on this point decided by the Supreme
Court of India. As far back as in 1987 in Collector, Land Acquisition,
2
Anantnag and Another vs. Mst. Katiji and Others , the High Court
refused to condone the delay of four days that had occurred in
filing the Appeal by the Collector in a land acquisition matter. The
Supreme Court setting aside the Order inter alia observed as
follows;
State Of Nagaland vs Lipok Ao & Ors on 1 April, 2005
(i) In State of Nagaland vs. Lipok AO and Others3, where the
State had delayed by a period of fifty-seven days in applying for
grant of leave to appeal before the High Court, against the
acquittal of certain accused persons, the Supreme Court reiterated
that where substantial justice and a technical approach were pitted
against each other, a pragmatic approach should be taken with the
former being preferred.
N. Balakrishnan vs M. Krishnamurthy on 3 September, 1998
Reference in
the said matter was made to N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy5
where the following observations were made;
Esha Bhattacharjee vs Mg.Commit.Of Raghunathpur Nafar ... on 13 September, 2013
(iii) In Esha Bhattacharjee (supra) referred to by the Learned
Additional Public Prosecutor, the High Court had condoned the
delay of 2449 days. The Supreme Court while considering its
various pronouncements on the question of delay observed that,
neither leisure nor pleasure has any room while one moves an
application seeking condonation of delay almost seven years, on
the ground of lack of knowledge or failure of justice.
Rameshwar Prasad & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr on 24 January, 2006
(vi) The Supreme Court in Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) through
7
Lrs. and Others vs. Union of India and Another was considering the
matter at the instance of certain affected landowners who had
challenged the Order dated 21-12-2011 passed by the Learned
Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi. By the Order under
challenge, the High Court had allowed an application filed by the
Union of India under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and
thereby condoned the delay of 479 days in presentation of an
Appeal from the decision of the Reference Court under Section 18
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The delay of 479 days in
presentation of the Appeal was condoned but not without the High
Court imposing costs of ₹ 10,000/- on the first Respondent. A
Bench in the Supreme Court comprising of two Hon'ble Judges in
appeal, considered a catena of Judgments on the point of
condonation of delay and ultimately opined as follows;
Section 18 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Registrar, University Of Delhi vs Union Of India And Ors on 27 April, 2015
(v) In University of Delhi vs. Union of India and Others6, a
Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court opined that
the delay of 916 days had not been sufficiently explained. The
Court distinguished the matter from Mst.
1