Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

THE SPECIAL TEHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION, KERALA versus K.V. AYISUMMA

Decided
23 July 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 848 · 1996 INSC 774

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

This appeal by special leave arises 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 to 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 had 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.

p. 848, margin F

It is now settled law that when Lhc delay was occasioned al the behest of the Government, il would be Yery difficult-to explain the Jay to Jay delay. The transaction of the business of the Government being Jone leisurely by officers who haJ no or evince no personal interest al different levels. No one Lakes personal responsibility in processing the matters expeditiously. As a fact al several stages, they take their own time to reach a decision. Even in spite of pointing at the Jelay, they do not take expeditious action for ultimate decision in filing Lhe appeal. This case is one of such instances. It is true that Section 5 of the Limitation Act envisages explanation of the delay Lo the satisfaction of the Court and in ~alters of Limitation Act n1ade no di~tinction bct\vcen the State and the citizen. Nonetheless adoption of strict slandarJ of proof leads to grave miscarriage of public justice, it would result in public mischief b_v 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, Lhc Subordinate .Judge has rightly adopted correct approach and had condoneJ the delay \Vlthout insisting upon explaining every day's delay in filing the revie\v application in the light of the la\v laid dc1\vn by this Court. The High Court was not right in setting aside the order. Delay rightly condoned.

p. 849, margin A

The appeal is accordingly allowed. The case is remitted to the reference Court for disposal of the review petition in accordance \Vith la\v. No costs. T.N.A. Appeal allowed.

p. 849, margin D