Task 2

COLLECTOR , LAND ACQUISTION, ANANTNAG V.
KATIJI (1987) 2
SCC 107
PETTITIONER- COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION, ANANTNAG & ANR.
RESPONDANT - MST. KATIJI & ORS.
JUDGEMENT DATE – 19.02.1987
CASE BACKGROUND
The Supreme Court of India’s judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji
(1987) is a pivotal case in Indian legal jurisprudence, particularly concerning the
interpretation of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This case underscores the judiciary’s
approach towards condoning delays in filing appeals and highlights the balancing act between
legal technicalities and substantive justice.
The genesis of the case lies in a land acquisition matter where the State of Jammu and
Kashmir appealed for increased compensation amounting to nearly 14 lakh rupees. The
appeal was dismissed as time-barred due to a 4-day delay in its filing. The State sought
condonation of this delay, raising significant questions on valuation principles.
FACTS
 The State of Jammu and Kashmir's appeal, stemming from a decision to increase
compensation for land acquisition for a public purpose to almost 14 lakhs rupees, was
dismissed on the grounds of being time-barred.
 The dismissal occurred because the application for condonation of the 4-day delay,
which sought to revise the order by 800% and raised significant questions about
valuation principles, was rejected.
ISSUES
 What are the factors that should be kept in mind while condoning the appeal under
Section 5 of the Limitation act?
 Whether the appeal dismissed was valid?
RULE OF LAW
The Supreme Court laid following principles that are supposed to be kept in mind while
granting condonation if delay:
o Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal, late.

o Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the
very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is
condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after
hearing the parties.
o "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach
should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay?
 The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.
o When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other,
cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to
have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.
o There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of
culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit
by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk.
LAWS APPLIED
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, of 1963, provides for the extension of the period in certain
cases.
RATIO DECIDENDI
It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize
injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is
expected to do so.
JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT
The expression ‘sufficient cause’ employed by the legislature in s.5 of the Indian Limitation
Act, 1963 is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by
disposing of matters on merits. The State which represents the collective cause of the
community does not deserve a litigant-non-grata status. The doctrine of equality before law
demands that all litigants, including the State as a litigant, are accorded the same treatment
and the law is administered in an equitable manner. The Courts, therefore, have to be
informed with the spirit and philosophy of the provision in the course of
the interpretation of the expression ‘sufficient cause’. So also the same approach has to be
evidenced in its application to matters at hand with the end in view to doeven handed
justice on merits in preference to the approach which scuttles a decision on merits. In the
instant case, sufficient cause exists for delay in instituting the appeal in the High Court. Delay
is, therefore, condoned. The matter is remitted to the High Court for disposal on merits.

Task 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Task 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COLLECTOR , LAND ACQUISTION, ANANTNAG V.

o Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal, late.

JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT

You might also like