The State Of Maharashtra And Anr vs Ashok Indrasen Nade
2018 Latest Caselaw 34 Bom

                                    (1)         33-CA 15408 of 2017 & Ors.



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

          33 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15408 OF 2017
IN FAST/37772/2017 WITH CA/15409/2017 IN FAST/37772/2017 

1)    The State of Maharashtra
      Through: Collector, Latur.

2)    The Executive Engineer,
      Minor Irrigation Division,
      Local Sector, Latur,
      District Latur.                              ..Applicants

                       Versus

Bharat s/o Tulshiram Nade
Age: 52 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o. Murud, Tq. & Dist.Latur.                      ..Respondent
                                  ...
                   AGP for Applicants : Mr.A.M.Phule
                Advocate for Respondents : Mr.R.D.Raut
                                  ...

                             ...
                           WITH 
  CA/15410/2017 IN FAST/37826/2017 WITH CA/15411/2017 IN
                     FAST/37826/2017 
                           WITH 
  CA/15413/2017 IN FAST/37837/2017 WITH CA/15414/2017 IN
                     FAST/37837/2017 
                            WITH
  CA/15415/2017 IN FAST/37841/2017 WITH CA/15416/2017 IN
                     FAST/37841/2017 
                           WITH 
  CA/15417/2017 IN FAST/37830/2017 WITH CA/15418/2017 IN
                     FAST/37830/2017 




     ::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2018         ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 00:54:13 :::
                                     (2)           33-CA 15408 of 2017 & Ors.



                          WITH 
 CA/15419/2017 IN FAST/37833/2017 WITH CA/15420/2017 IN
                    FAST/37833/2017
                           ...


                                    CORAM :  M.S.SONAK, J.

DATE : 4th JANUARY, 2018

ORAL JUDGMENT:-

1) Heard Mr.A.M.Phule, learned AGP for the applicants

and Mr.R.D.Raut, learned counsel for the respondents in

all these Civil Applications.

2) By these Civil Applications, which are virtually

identical in nature, the State seeks condonation of delay

in instituting appeals against Judgment and Award dated

31.3.2012. The delay in each of these matters is of 1972

days i.e. more than five years.

3) Mr.Phule, learned AGP submits that in these cases,

the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation almost

12 times without there being any material on record to

justify such enhancement. He submits that the delay was

(3) 33-CA 15408 of 2017 & Ors.

because files had to move from table to table and

decisions had to be taken by several authorities before

the appeals could actually be instituted. He points out

that the certified copy of the Judgment and Award dated

31.3.2012 was applied for on 13.8.2013 and after the

same was ready, the matter was referred to the office of

Government Pleader for legal opinion. After securing

such opinion, the matter was referred to the Joint

Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department, who recommended

filing of the appeals and ultimately on 24.9.2015, the

papers were forwarded to the office of Government Pleader

and soon thereafter, the Government Pleader prepared the

appeal papers. However, there was some delay in securing

certified copies, Demand Drafts for Court fees and legal

expenses and therefore, the appeals alongwith application

for condonation of delay could be instituted only on

21.11.2017.

4)    Mr.Phule,   learned   AGP   submits   that   all   this   is





                                     (4)           33-CA 15408 of 2017 & Ors.

sufficient cause and therefore, the delay in instituting

all appeals may be condoned.

5) Mr.Phule, learned AGP relying upon decision of the

Supreme Court in the case of N.Balakrishnan vs. M.

1998 (7) SCC 123] submits Krishnamurthy, reported in [

that in such matters, the length of delay is not

significant but the acceptability of the explanation is

the only criteria. Mr.Phule also relied upon the

decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector

Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in

[ 1987 (2) SCC 107 ] to submit that refusing to condone

delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out

at the very threshold and cause of justice being

defeated. He submits that in case the delay is condoned,

at the highest the appeals can be decided on merits. For

all these reasons, Mr.Phule, learned AGP submits that

this is a fit case for condonation of delay.

                                     (5)          33-CA 15408 of 2017 & Ors.



6)    Mr.R.D.Raut,   learned   counsel   for   the   respondents

submits that the delay in the present case is quite

inordinate and there is absolutely no explanation for the

same. He submits that the applications seeking

condonation of delay are quite vague and in all cases it

is not sufficient merely to state that decisions had to

be taken at different levels and therefore, more time was

spent for filing the appeals. He points out that there

are no details in the Civil Applications and the

explanation offered is entirely vague and can never

constitute sufficient cause. He submits that the

respondents' lands have been acquired and it is quite

unjust and unfair that the compensation awarded in their

favour should be revisited at this point of time. For

all these reasons, Mr.Raut, learned counsel submits that

these Civil Applications may be dismissed.

7) In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is

necessary to make a reference to the cause as indicated

(6) 33-CA 15408 of 2017 & Ors.

in the Civil Applications. The impugned Judgment and

Award was made on 31.3.2012 and the applicants admit that

the certified copy was applied for only on 13.8.2013.

There is absolutely no explanation in the applications as

to why there was such inordinate delay in even applying

for certified copies of the Judgment and Award,

particularly, since it is now the case of the applicants

that there was manifold increase in the compensation

amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The

statement that some time was spent to obtain opinion from

Assistant Government Pleader and Joint Secretary, Law and

Judiciary Department, is again, quite vague and backed by

no particulars. In any case, the Officers are expected

to act within some reasonable period. There is no point

in seeking condonation of delay virtually as a matter of

right on the ground that the Assistant Government

Pleader's office or the Joint Secretary, Law and

Judiciary Department, took some time to furnish a legal

opinion.

                                     (7)           33-CA 15408 of 2017 & Ors.




8)    In   this   case,   the   legal   opinion   and   recommendation

for filing of appeal was taken on 24.9.2015. Thereafter,

the Office of the Government Pleader also prepared the

appeal memos in the month of September 2015 itself. The

appeals and applications for condonation of delay are

instituted on 22.11.2017. Again, the delay between

September 2015 and November 2017 is both inordinate and

unexplained. The vague statement that the memos of

appeal were incomplete or that the Demand Draft for

payment of Court fees and legal expenses, was not

enclosed alongwith proposal can hardly be said to

constitute sufficient cause. Inspite the delay being of

more than five years, the applications merely state that

there is 'some delay' in institution of appeals. This is

hardly the proper manner to explain the delay. It is true

that every day's delay is not required to be explained.

However, that does not mean that delay which is of over

five years can be explained in such a casual manner. In

(8) 33-CA 15408 of 2017 & Ors.

such circumstances, it cannot be said that any sufficient

cause has been made out to condone the delay.

9) Normally, the applications seeking condonation of

delay are liberally considered. This is more so when

impersonal agency like the Government or Public Sector

Acquiring Bodies are concerned. Mr.Phule, learned AGP

is quite right in his submission that quantum of delay is

not decisive but it is the quality of explanation, which

determines the matter. In the present case, the quality

of explanation is simply lacking. On the basis of the

vague pleadings of procedural delay, it will not be

appropriate to condone such inordinate delay of over five

years in instituting all the appeals.

10) Ultimately, the plight of the land losers cannot be

totally forgotten. They have lost their lands several

years ago. They have been litigating to secure some

compensation, since according to them, what was awarded

(9) 33-CA 15408 of 2017 & Ors.

by the Land Acquisition Officer was mere pittance.

Despite the determination by the reference Court, almost

five years ago, as pointed out by learned counsel for

respondents, the enhanced compensation has not infact

been paid to the land losers. There is no clarity as to

whether the land losers have levied execution or not.

Learned counsel for respondents submits that in most

cases, the land losers have no means to levy execution,

since, the experience has shown that the mighty State

which has acquired their lands is often successful in

delaying the execution process as well. Respondents have

thus suffered enough prejudice on account of denial of

enhanced compensation despite the award made by the

reference Court almost five years ago. To permit the

applicant at this stage to re-visit the issue of

compensation and that too, without there being any

sufficient cause shown to explain the inordinate delay,

will only amount to grant of undeserved indulgence to the

applicant, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

( 10 ) 33-CA 15408 of 2017 & Ors.

The possibility of these appeals having been instituted

only to seek some ex-post facto justification for non-

payment of enhanced compensation to the land losers,

cannot be ruled out. In such circumstances, it will not

be appropriate to exercise discretion in favour of the

applicants.

11) The decision in N. Balkrishnan (supra) case requires

the applicant to demonstrate good faith before claiming

exercise of discretion. The decision, no doubt, states

that the length of delay is not decisive but the quality

of explanation is the determinative factor. In this

case, quality of explanation is too poor to constitute

any sufficient cause. Mst. Katiji (supra), no doubt,

absolves explanation of each day's delay. However, the

observation does not mean that delay of over five years

is to be condoned as a matter of routine in the absence

of any sufficient cause.

( 11 ) 33-CA 15408 of 2017 & Ors.

12) The averments in the application seeking

condonation, are quite casual and unverifiable. On basis

of such routine averments, the State, cannot, in every

case, plead that delay should be condoned, because it is

an impersonal agency, which is required to act through

its officers. The statements that files had to be moved

from table to table or that pressure of work or that some

time is always required for decisions, which have to be

taken at different levels are reasons too vague to merit

any acceptance, particularly when we are dealing with

case of land losers, who have been deprived of

compensation for several years.

13) 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

( 12 ) 33-CA 15408 of 2017 & Ors.

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 land-losers to courts of law years after the

termination of legal proceedings would not serve any

public interest. Settled rights cannot be 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

( 13 ) 33-CA 15408 of 2017 & Ors.

they cannot be excluded from consideration. In cases

with which we are concerned, no such facts have been

either pleaded or proved.

14) In Registrar of Companies vs. Rajshree Sugar &

Chemicals Ltd. and ors reported in ., [ 2(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

to act with reasonable expedition.

15) In Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of

Raghunathpur afar Academy & ors ., reported in 3(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

( 14 ) 33-CA 15408 of 2017 & Ors.

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.

16) In Postmaster General and Ors. vs. Living Media

India Limited and anr. reported in , [ 4(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

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

( 15 ) 33-CA 15408 of 2017 & Ors.

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 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 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 was no proper explanation offered by the Department

( 16 ) 33-CA 15408 of 2017 & Ors.

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.

17) In Basawaraj and anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition

(2013) 14 SCC 81] the Hon'ble Officer, reported in [

Supreme Court went on to observe that the law on the

issue can be summarised 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

( 17 ) 33-CA 15408 of 2017 & Ors.

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

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.

18) 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

( 18 ) 33-CA 15408 of 2017 & Ors.

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

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.

19) Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of

the present case, it will not be proper to indulge the

applicants and condone delay of four or five years in

instituting these appeals, particularly, when no

sufficient cause has been shown.

20) For the aforesaid reasons, these civil applications

( 19 ) 33-CA 15408 of 2017 & Ors.

are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As

a consequence of dismissal of civil applications, the

appeals and civil applications seeking stay also stand

disposed of.

[M.S.SONAK, J.]

SPT/33-CA 15408 of 2017 & Ors.