Supreme Court Rules Subsequent Change in Law Not a Ground for Condonation of Delay
The Supreme Court of India clarified that a subsequent change in law cannot be a valid ground for the condonation of delay. This landmark decision came in a batch of land acquisition cases where the court emphasized the importance of finality in legal proceedings.
The Ruling
The bench, consisting of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuyan, observed:
“…if subsequent change of law is allowed as a valid ground for condonation of delay, it would open a Pandora’s Box where all the cases that were subsequently overruled, or the cases that had relied on the judgements that were subsequently overruled, would approach this Court and would seek a relief based on the new interpretation of law. There would be no finality to the proceedings and every time this Court would reach a different conclusion from its previous case, all such cases and the cases relying on it would be reopened.”
Background of the Case
The case involved the land acquisition process initiated by the Delhi government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the planned development of Delhi. Various notifications were issued between 1957 and 2006 for acquiring lands and awarding compensation. In some instances, compensation was deposited in the treasury as landowners did not come forward, while in others, possession could not be taken due to legal challenges and stays.
With the replacement of the 1894 Act by the 2013 Act, significant reforms were introduced, including Section 24, which provided that land acquisition proceedings initiated under the earlier regime would be deemed to have lapsed under certain conditions.
Key Supreme Court Decisions
Section 24 was interpreted in several Supreme Court decisions, including:
- Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harak Chand Mistrimal Solanki
- Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu
- Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra
- Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal
The decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, a five-judge bench ruling, overruled Pune Municipal Corporation, Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association, and Shailendra. Consequently, Delhi government entities (DDA, DMRC, etc.) filed appeals against Delhi High Court orders declaring acquisition proceedings as lapsed based on Pune Municipal Corporation and Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association.
The Issue of Condonation of Delay
When examining the maintainability of the petitions, the Supreme Court addressed the appellants’ argument for condonation of delay based on the “subsequent change in law” due to the decisions in Shailendra and Manoharlal. The court rejected this argument, stating that the prescribed period of limitation had expired long before the delivery of these judgments.
“The appellants let the limitation period lapse, perhaps because they saw no case on merits for appeal. When the law was subsequently re-interpreted in the afore-cited two cases, the appellants approached this Court with the present appeals, petitions, and applications. Instead of showing a sufficient cause arising within the period of limitation, they are using an event after the expiry of such period to justify the delay. This does not square with our understanding of the law, and cannot be allowed.”
Conclusion
The court concluded that the subsequent overruling of a judgment does not constitute a “sufficient cause” for the purposes of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, as it only removes the binding nature of the overruled case as a precedent without reopening the lis between the parties. The court emphasized that subsequent change of law would only be relevant if a case was pending final adjudication.
Although the ground of “subsequent change in law” was rejected, the court permitted condonation of delay on other grounds, including “public interest.” Most appeals were accordingly allowed with separate orders and directions passed in other cases.
Case Details
Case Title: Delhi Development Authority v. Tejpal & Ors., SLP(C) No. 26697 of 2019 (and connected matters)
For a detailed analysis and to read/download the full judgment, click here.
