Supreme Court upholds High Court's condonation of delay in State land appeal but imposes costs and timeline

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah heard an appeal challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order condoning a delay of 1,537 days in filing a Second Appeal by the State concerning title and possession of a disputed parcel of land, and directing that the Second Appeal be listed on admission along with the stay application.

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s order condoning the delay, while directing the State to pay costs of Rs.50,000 to the private litigant within one month and warning that failure to do so would entail peremptory dismissal of the Second Appeal. The Court emphasised that although “delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause,” where the “merits have to be examined, it should not be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “In the present case, the filing of the Review Petition before the First Appellate Court was with a delay of two years and four months and the Second Appeal before the High Court was delayed by about a year from the date of the dismissal of the Review Petition i.e., 30.09.2019. Pausing for a moment, it is necessary to indicate that in the present case, the dispute over title of a land is not between private parties, but rather between the private party and the State. Moreover, when the land in question was taken possession of by the State and allotted for public purpose to the Youth Welfare Department and the Collectorate and has continued in the possession of the State, the claim of the State that it is government land cannot be summarily discarded. We find, upon a perusal of the record, that the appellant had, in fact, filed an execution case for taking over possession of the land, which would demonstrate clearly the admitted position that he was not in possession thereof. Thus, the matter would, in our considered view, require adjudication on its own merits due to various reasons, inter alia, the fact that a new district has been formed after the initial claim of the appellant of being allotted the land in the years 1975-1976/1977-1978. Therefore, the delay of 1537 days reckoned from 01.10.2015 … in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case … persuade us to not interfere with the Impugned Order.”

Background The dispute arose from a suit filed on 14.12.2012 by the private litigant for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction in respect of Land Survey No.8/1 (1.060 hectare) in Village Mohrirai, Ashoknagar, alleging allotment in his favour in 1977 and a subsequent recording error that was rectified in 1978. The State contended that the area formed part of government graze land, portions of which were allotted to the Youth Welfare Department and the Collectorate by orders in 2006, and denied that the private litigant was ever in possession.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit on 16.08.2013. The First Appellate Court allowed the civil appeal on 01.10.2015 and declared the appellant to be the landlord. The State’s review petition to the First Appellate Court was dismissed on 30.09.2019 for delay. The State then filed a Second Appeal in August 2020 accompanied by an application under Section 51 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay; the High Court allowed that application and directed listing of the Second Appeal on admission and the stay application.

Before the Supreme Court the appellant argued that the State had not shown “sufficient cause” for the inordinate delay, pointing to earlier authorities which emphasised due diligence by government departments and warned against leniency for “red tapism” and negligence. The State explained that a substantial portion of the delay flowed from the time taken in prosecuting the review petition and that the remainder was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic; it urged a liberal approach to condonation so that important government land claims could be decided on merits.

The Supreme Court reviewed precedent emphasising a balanced, liberal approach where merits warranted consideration and noted that the present dispute involved land in the possession of the State and required adjudication on merits. The Court imposed a cost condition—payment of Rs.50,000 by the State to the private litigant within one month—and requested the High Court to take up the Second Appeal on priority if payment was made. The appeal was dismissed and the Impugned Order was upheld. Parties were left free to raise all contentions before the High Court; the Court cautioned the State to exhibit promptitude in future.

Case Details: Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.6145 OF 2024] Case Title: Inder Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): (Names not indicated in the judgment) For the Respondent(s): (Names not indicated in the judgment)