Bombay High Court
The Special Land Acquisition ... vs Atmaram Yadav Patil on 30 January, 2018
Bench: M.S. Sonak
FAST 35078/2015 with CAs 15656/15, 15657/15 & 275/18 & others
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.35078/2015
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATIONS NOS.15656/2015,
15657/2015 & 275/2018
1] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Laghu Patbandhare Vibhag, Jalgaon.
2]
The Executive Engineer,
Laghu Patbandhare Vibhag, Jalgaon.
Dist.Jalgaon.
...Appellants..
(Org.respondents)
Versus
Atmaram Yadav Patil,
age 75 yrs., occu.agri.,
r/o Shevale Tq.Parola Dist.Jalgaon.
...Respondent...
(Org.claimant)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.35081/2015
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATIONS NOS.15658/2015,
15659/2015 & 290/2018
1] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Laghu Patbandhare Vibhag, Jalgaon.
2]
The Executive Engineer,
Laghu Patbandhare Vibhag, Jalgaon.
Dist.Jalgaon.
...Appellants..
(Org.respondents)
Versus
::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2018 02:03:32 :::
FAST 35078/2015 with CAs 15656/15, 15657/15 & 275/18 & others
- 2 -
Rukhamabai Aadhar Patil,
age 50 yrs., occu.agri.,
r/o Shevale Tq.Parola Dist.Jalgaon.
...Respondent...
(Org.claimant)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.35075/2015
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATIONS NOS.15654/2015,
15655/2015 & 292/2018
1] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Laghu Patbandhare Vibhag, Jalgaon.
2]
The Executive Engineer,
Laghu Patbandhare Vibhag, Jalgaon.
Dist.Jalgaon.
...Appellants..
(Org.respondents)
Versus
Shantaram Namdeo Patil (died),
through his L.Rs.
1] Motanbai Shantaram Patil,
age 55 yrs.,
2] Ravindra Shantaram Patil,
age 38 yrs.,
3] Sunil Shantaram Patil,
age 50 yrs.,
All occu.agri., r/o Shevale (Bu.)
Tq.Parola Dist.Jalgaon.
...Respondents...
(Org.claimants)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Shri A.M. Phule, AGP for appellants.
Shri V.B. Patil, Advocate for respondents - claimants.
.....
::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2018 02:03:32 :::
FAST 35078/2015 with CAs 15656/15, 15657/15 & 275/18 & others
- 3 -
CORAM: M.S. SONAK, J.
DATE: 30.01.2018
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1] Learned counsel for the parties state that all
these three first appeals can be disposed of by common
judgment since they relate to acquisition under one and
the same notification and for one and the same project.
2] In First Appeal (St) No.30578/2015, there is 888
days delay in institution of the appeal. In First Appeal
(St) Nos.35075/2015 and 35081/2015, the delay is of 971
days. In all these three appeals, civil applications
have been taken out seeking condonation of delay.
3] On the perusal of the civil applications, it is
seen that the averments in all the three civil
applications are virtually identical. All that is stated
in the civil applications is that proposals were
forwarded by the Law and Judiciary Department, but since
such proposals were incomplete i.e. were not accompanied
by certified and typed copies of judgments and awards,
difference charged of Court fees, there was delay. There
is a reference to case papers being forwarded to the
FAST 35078/2015 with CAs 15656/15, 15657/15 & 275/18 & others
- 4 -
office of the Assistant Government Pleader but it is
stated that since all requisite papers and Court fees
were not provided, the office of the Government Pleader
could not file the appeals.
4] The reasons are both unverifiable and quite
casual. On the basis of such reasons, delay of almost
three years cannot be condoned. Merely stating that the
delay was for reasons beyond the control of the
applicants / appellants or that the delay was
unintentional is not sufficient in such matters to
condone the delay.
5] In Pundlik Jalam Patil (Dead) By Lrs. vs.
Executive Engineer, Jalgaon, Medium Project and anr.,
reported in [ (2008) 17 SCC 448], the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that pursing stale claims and multiplicity
of proceedings in no manner subserves public interest.
These public interest parameters ought to be kept in mind
by the courts while exercising the discretion dealing
with the application filed under section 5 of the
Limitation Act. Dragging the landlosers to courts of law
years after the termination of legal proceedings would
not serve any public interest. Settled rights cannot be
FAST 35078/2015 with CAs 15656/15, 15657/15 & 275/18 & others
- 5 -
lightly interfered with by condoning inordinate delay
without there being any proper explanation of such delay
on the ground of involvement of public revenue. This
serves no public interest. Though, the State or its
instrumentalities seeking condonation of delay may be
entitled to certain amount of latitude but the law of
limitation is same for citizens and for governmental
authorities. It would be a different matter where the
Government makes out a case where public interest was
shown to have suffered owing to acts of fraud or
collusion on the part of its officers or agents and where
the officers were clearly at cross purposes with it. In a
given case, if any, such facts are pleaded and proved
they cannot be excluded from consideration. In cases with
which we are concerned, no such facts have been either
pleaded or proved.
6] In Registrar of Companies vs. Rajshree Sugar &
Chemicals Ltd. and ors., reported in [(2000) 6 SCC 133],
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that though some latitude
has to be shown to the Government in deciding the
question of delay, that does not give a licence to the
officers of the Government to shirk their responsibility
FAST 35078/2015 with CAs 15656/15, 15657/15 & 275/18 & others
- 6 -
to act with reasonable expedition.
7] In Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of
Raghunathpur afar Academy & ors., reported in [(2013) 12
SCC 649], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that an
application for condonation of delay should be drafted
with careful concern and not in a haphazard manner
harbouring the notion that the courts are required to
condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that
adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to justice
dispensation system. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that an application for condonation of delay
should not be dealt with in a routine manner on the basis
of individual philosophy which is basically subjective.
The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non-
serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can
be exhibited in a nonchalant manner requires to be
curbed, of course, within legal parameters.
8] In Postmaster General and Ors. vs. Living Media
India Limited and anr., reported in [(2012) 3 SCC 563],
the Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to condone the delay
of 427 days in filing the special leave petition by
observing that department cannot take advantage of
FAST 35078/2015 with CAs 15656/15, 15657/15 & 275/18 & others
- 7 -
various earlier decisions where a very liberal approach
was adopted when it came to condone delay on the part of
Government agencies. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed
that the claim on account of impersonal machinery and
inherited 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. 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 bona-fide 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 red-tape 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 department. The law shelters
everyone under the same light and should not be swirled
for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there
FAST 35078/2015 with CAs 15656/15, 15657/15 & 275/18 & others
- 8 -
was no proper explanation offered by the Department for
the delay except mentioning of various dates, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that, the Department has miserably
failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons
sufficient to condone such a huge delay.
9] In Basawaraj and anr. vs. Special Land
Acquisition Officer, reported in [(2013) 14 SCC 81] the
Hon'ble Supreme Court went on to observe that the law on
the issue can be summarized to the effect that where a
case has been presented in the court beyond limitation,
the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the
"sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough
reason which prevented him to approach the court within
limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or
for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and
circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted
diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a
justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be
justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by
imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to
be decided only within the parameters laid down by this
Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case
FAST 35078/2015 with CAs 15656/15, 15657/15 & 275/18 & others
- 9 -
there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to
approach the court on time condoning the delay without
any justification, putting any condition whatsoever,
amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory
provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard
to the legislature.
10] The Division Bench of this Court in State of
Maharashtra and ors. vs. Vithu Kalya Govari and ors.,
reported in [2008(6) Mh.L.J.239] has observed that the
State is not expected to be negligent or to take no
action for years and let the matters become time barred
on account of its negligence and inaction. The usual
reason of "official hassle" or "approval at different
levels" is hardly sufficient to justify condonation of
delay of about two years. In law, advantage has accrued
to the non-applicants claimants and the same cannot be
withdrawn in a mechanical manner and that too without any
sufficient cause being shown by the applicants. Despite,
awards/judgments of the Courts, which have attained
finality, the claimants are not permitted to receive
compensation in respect of their lands, which came to be
compulsorily acquired, is itself, sufficient prejudice to
FAST 35078/2015 with CAs 15656/15, 15657/15 & 275/18 & others
- 10 -
them. Therefore, before any delay can be condoned and the
claimants subjected to further prolonged litigation, the
onus to show sufficient cause lies upon the applicant-
State.
11] Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts
of the present case, all these applications for
condonation of delay are liable to be dismissed and are
hereby dismissed.
12] There is yet another reason, which is required
to be recorded. In First Appeal (St) No.35075/2015, the
Reference Court has enhanced the compensation from
Rs.37,000/- per Hectare to Rs.1,00,000/- per Hectare. In
the remaining two appeals, the Reference Court has
enhanced the compensation from Rs.42,000/- per Hectare to
Rs.1,00,000/- per Hectare.
13] The State Government, by Government resolution
dated 3.11.2016, which is amended from time to time, has
taken a policy decision not to institute or pursue the
appeals where the enhanced rate is less than four times
the ready reckoner rate prevalent at the time of issuance
of Section 4 notification. Normally, the compensation
awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer corresponds more
FAST 35078/2015 with CAs 15656/15, 15657/15 & 275/18 & others
- 11 -
or less to the ready reckoner rates at the stage of
issuance of Section 4 notification. This means that the
enhanced compensation in the present case is well within
the limits prescribed in the Government resolution dated
3.11.2016. In these circumstances, the State Government
should have either not instituted these appeals or made a
fair statement that they are not pursuing these appeals.
However, since despite the Government resolutions
recording the policy decision of the State Government, no
instructions are forthcoming and the learned AGPs
naturally are reluctant to withdraw the appeals in the
absence of specific written instructions. Therefore, the
arguments were heard and the matters are being disposed
of.
14] For the aforesaid reasons, the civil
applications for condonation of delay are hereby
dismissed. As a consequence, the First Appeals do not
survive and they are also disposed of. The civil
applications seeking withdrawal of the compensation
amount, which is already deposited by the appellants,
are, however, allowed and the applicants - claimants are
permitted to withdraw the deposited amount together with
FAST 35078/2015 with CAs 15656/15, 15657/15 & 275/18 & others
- 12 -
interest that may have accrued thereon unconditionally.
The civil applications for withdrawal are accordingly
disposed of. In view of above, all other civil
applications pending in these appeals, if any, are also
disposed of.
(M.S. SONAK, J.)
ndk/c3011821.doc
