Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Sri Ram on 1 May, 2012
Bench: Sibghat Ullah Khan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Court No. - 59
Delay condonation application no. 739 of 1995
In
Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 116 of 1995
Petitioner :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Sri Ram
Petitioner Counsel :- C.K.Rai,S.C.
Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.
Heard learned standing counsel for the applicant appellant.
This first appeal is directed against award dated 25.5.1993 given by 5th A.D.J., Ghaziabad, in L.A. Reference no.85 of 1982. The appeal has been filed on 1.3.1995 with the delay of 465 days (458+7). The reason of delay given in the accompanying affidavit of Satyaveer Singh Arya A.D.M. (L.A.) Irrigation, Ghaziabad is as follows:
The D.G.C. Applied for certified copy of the award dated 25.5.1993 on 10.9.1993 (para 2). This delay of three and half month has not been explained.
Acquiring body gave its consent on 29.10.1993, letter addressed to the State Government for seeking permission to file appeal was drafted/prepared on 10.11.1993, however, Collector Ghaziabad put his signatures on the said letter on 10.12.1993 (para 4). This delay of one month is wholly unexplained.
State Government granted permission on 18.2.1994 but collector Ghaziabad did not get that. On 11.5.1994 an official was sent to the office of C.S.C. High Court Allahabad but he was told that without permission appeal could not be filed. It has not been explained that why without permission official was sent to the High Court for filing appeal. Thereafter, it is mentioned that on 26.6.1994 reminder was sent to the Government demanding/requiring the G.O. dated 18.2.1994 granting the permission but no response was given by the State Government. Thereafter, two reminders were sent in July and August 1994 and ultimately on 27.8.1994 special messanger was sent and thereupon permission dated 18.2.1994 was made available to him on 1.9.1994 (para 8). This delay of six and a half months has been caused due to pure negligence. Thereafter in para 9 it is mentioned that thereafter acquiring body was requested to make available necessary expenses, reminder was also sent and ultimately on 27.9.1994 acquiring body sent the necessary expenses which were received on 3.12.1994 (para 9). It is startling to note that expenses remitted on 27.9.1994 reached the Collector after more than two months i.e. on 3.12.1994. Moreover if expenses had not been sent by the acquiring body how official was sent to file appeal in May 1994 as stated in para 7. Thereafter, in para 10 it is mentioned that from 5.12.1994 till 25.1.1994 Government employee were on strike.
The averments made in the accompanying affidavit are not explanation of delay but details of utter negligence on the part of officers/officials. Such officials/officers who are responsible for such utter negligence causing not only financial loss but also loss of credibility to the State Government deserve to be suspended and departmental proceedings for stern action deserve to be taken against them.
In office of the Chief Post Master General Vs. Living Media J.T. 2012(2) S.C.483 Supreme Court refused to condone the inordinate delay (of 427 days) in filing S.L.P. paras 12 and 13 of the said judgment are quoted below:-
12) It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited 6 bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government.
13) In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural redtape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay."
Moreover, the enhanced amount as awarded by the impugned judgment must have been realised by the claimant respondent long before. Supreme Court in Stanes Higher Secondary School Vs. SpecialTehsildar (L.A). A.I.R. 2010 SC 1323 has held that if the amount as awarded by the reference court has been withdrawn by the landowner then even if High Court reduces the said amount, it would be quite unjust to direct return of the said amount (para 12). In this regard reference may also be made to Fida Husain Vs. M.D.A. A.I.R. 2011 S.C. 3001 (para 28)
In State of Punjab Vs. Harchal Singh AIR 2006 SC 2122 the Court has taken into consideration the "Laws Delay" which may not be attributable to anyone in the land acquisition matters. In the instant case also the matter has become almost 20 years old since the date on which amount was enhanced by the reference court.
Accordingly, I do not find any merit, hence delay condonation application is dismissed.
Office is directed to supply a copy of this order free of cost to Sri Shrish Chandra, learned standing counsel for sending the same immediately to Secretary and Principal Secretary Irrigation Department. In some future case it may be enquired that what action was taken pursuant to this order.
Order Date :- 1.5.2012
vkg
Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 116 of 1995
Petitioner :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Sri Ram
Petitioner Counsel :- C.K.Rai,S.C.
Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.
As delay condonation application has been rejected by order of date hence appeal is dismissed as barred by time.
Order Date :- 1.5.2012
vkg
