G. RAMEGOWDA, MAJOR, ETC. versus SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BANGALORE.

G. RAMEGOWDA, MAJOR, ETC. versus SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BANGALORE.

The Supreme Court held that, though there was significant delay and the conduct of the government officers was close to justifying rejection of condonation, in the interest of keeping the stream of justice pure and clean, and considering the unique difficulties faced by the government due to the bad faith of its officers, the discretion exercised by the High Court in condoning the delay should not be interfered with.

Parties
Appellant: G. Ramegowda; Respondent: Special Land Acquisition Officer
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 March 1988
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal Against High Court Order Condoning Delay in Filing Appeals
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Limitation, Condonation of Delay, Land Compensation, Government Litigation
Civil Procedure Land Acquisition Limitation Condonation of Delay Land Compensation Government Litigation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G. Ramegowda

Appellant

Special Land Acquisition Officer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal Against High Court Order Condoning Delay in Filing Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was justified in condoning the delay in filing appeals by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that, though there was significant delay and the conduct of the government officers was close to justifying rejection of condonation, in the interest of keeping the stream of justice pure and clean, and considering the unique difficulties faced by the government due to the bad faith of its officers, the discretion exercised by the High Court in condoning the delay should not be interfered with.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court order condoning the delay.
  • No order as to costs.