Bombay High Court
The Executive Engineer, Minor ... vs Rameshwar Dhondiba Shete on 15 January, 2018
Bench: M.S. Sonak
(1) 28 - CA 10848 of 2017 & Ors.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
28 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10848 OF 2017
IN FAST/26206/2017 WITH CA/10849/2017 IN FAST/26206/2017
1. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division,
Dist.Osmanabad,
Through:
Babu s/o Bhagwan Madke
Age: 54 years, Occu.: Service
as Sub-Divisional Engineer No.I,
Dist.Osmanabad.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(P.T. & M.I.W.) No.1, Osmanabad.
3. State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Osmanabad. ..Applicants
VERSUS
. Avinash s/o Vyenkatrao Joshi
Age: 54 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o.Block No.25, Vijay Colony,
Latur. ..Respondent
...
Advocate for Applicants : Mr.S.C.Arora
...
WITH
29 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10961 OF 2017
IN FAST/26437/2017 WITH CA/10962/2017 IN FAST/26437/2017
WITH CA/10963/2017 IN FAST/26210/2017 WITH CA/10964/2017
IN FAST/26210/2017
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 01:08:36 :::
(2) 28 - CA 10848 of 2017 & Ors.
WITH
30 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12264 OF 2017
IN FAST/30077/2017 WITH CA/12265/2017 IN FAST/30077/2017
WITH CA/12266/2017 IN FAST/30157/2017 WITH CA/12267/2017
IN FAST/30157/2017 WITH CA/12268/2017 IN FAST/30160/2017
WITH CA/12269/2017 IN FAST/30160/2017 WITH CA/12270/2017
IN FAST/30164/2017 WITH CA/12271/2017 IN FAST/30164/2017
WITH
32 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7 OF 2018
IN FAST/36405/2017 WITH CA/8/2018 IN FAST/36405/2017 WITH
CA/9/2018 IN FAST/36499/2017 WITH CA/10/2018 IN
FAST/36499/2017 WITH CA/11/2018 IN FAST/36506/2017 WITH
CA/12/2018 IN FAST/36506/2017 WITH CA/13/2018 IN
FAST/36502/2017 WITH CA/14/2018 IN FAST/36502/2017
WITH
33 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15 OF 2018
IN FAST/36449/2017 WITH CA/16/2018 IN FAST/36449/2017
WITH
36 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 473 OF 2018
IN FAST/26159/2017 WITH CA/474/2018 IN FAST/26159/2017
WITH CA/476/2018 IN FAST/26275/2017 WITH CA/477/2018 IN
FAST/26275/2017 WITH CA/478/2018 IN FAST/26278/2017 WITH
CA/479/2018 IN FAST/26278/2017 WITH CA/481/2018 IN
FAST/26268/2017 WITH CA/482/2018 IN FAST/26268/2017 WITH
CA/483/2018 IN FAST/26272/2017 WITH CA/484/2018 IN
FAST/26272/2017
...
CORAM : M.S.SONAK, J.
DATE : 15th JANUARY, 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT:-
1) Heard Mr.S.C.Arora, the learned counsel for the
applicants in these Civil Applications seeking
(3) 28 - CA 10848 of 2017 & Ors.
condonation of delay in institution of the First Appeals
against the awards made by the Reference Court under the
provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (said Act).
2) In Civil Application No.10848 of 2017, delay is of
884 days, in Civil Application No.10961 of 2017, delay
is of 1000 days, in Civil Application No.10963 of 2017,
delay is of 996 days, in Civil Application Nos.12264 of
2017, 12266 of 2017, 12268 of 2017, 12270 of 2017, delay
is of 1333 days, in Civil Application Nos.7 of 2018, 9 of
2018, 11 of 2018, 13 of 2018, delay is of 655 days, in
Civil Application No.15 of 2018, delay is of 888 days, in
Civil Application Nos.473 of 2018, 476 of 2018, 478 of
2018, 481 of 2018 and 483 of 2018, delay is of 1399 days,
3) Mr.Arora the learned counsel for the applicants is
quite right in his submission that in all such matters,
it is not the length of the delay but the quality of
explanation that matters. Therefore, although, the delay
(4) 28 - CA 10848 of 2017 & Ors.
in the institution of the appeals is quite large, it is
necessary to focus on the explanation furnished and not
merely the length of the delay.
4) In all these cases, the explanation or cause shown
is virtually identical and therefore, reference to the
cause shown in Civil Application No.10848 of 2017 will
suffice and apply to the acceptability or otherwise of
the cause shown in the remaining Civil Applications.
5) In Paragraph No.4, it is stated that the impugned
Judgment was made on 3.12.2014, and the applicants were
not aware that such award was made, since the mater was
reserved for orders. Further, it is stated that
application for certified copy was made on 12.8.2015 and
the copy was delivered on the same date. Apart from the
statement that applicants were not aware of the making of
award, there is absolutely no material produced on record
in support of this statement. Infact, if the award dated
(5) 28 - CA 10848 of 2017 & Ors.
3.12.2014 is perused, it contains a specific endorsement
that same was dictated and pronounced in the open Court.
The award also notes the presence of the Advocates for
the respondents including in particular, the respondent
Nos.1, 2 and 3. Therefore, to put it in simple terms,
the statement in paragraph No.4 of the application
seeking condonation of delay is inaccurate and deserves
no acceptance. This only means that though the impugned
award was dictated and pronounced in the open Court on
3.12.2014 in the presence of the Advocates for the
appellants, no certified copies were applied for until
12.8.2015 i.e. for over nine months. There is absolutely
no explanation for such inaction and delay.
6) In paragraph No.5 of the Civil Application, there is
again a statement that applicants sought legal opinion
from the Advocate, who conducted the Reference and sought
for necessary documents and communications from the
office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(6) 28 - CA 10848 of 2017 & Ors.
Osmanabad. Again, these are bare statements, which are
totally unverified. In any case, neither there is any
document placed on record nor any details are furnished.
The statements made are quite casual.
7) In paragraph No.6 of the Civil Application, it is
stated that the applicants are Government Institutions
and therefore, they have to take approval and make
budgetary provision to file appeal from the Government.
If the cause title is perused, the third applicant is
nothing but the Government i.e. the State of Maharashtra.
Time spent to take approval from itself hardly
constitutes sufficient cause.
8) Then, it is stated that the applicant No.1 asked for
Court fees to the Head Office, the same were not
received. It is further stated that the Project for
which the land has acquired was quite old and the
budgetary allocation stood exhausted. Special budgetary
(7) 28 - CA 10848 of 2017 & Ors.
provision has to be made. This, it is stated,
constitutes a cause, which is beyond the control of the
applicant. Finally, it is stated that the applicant
sought guidance from the higher authorities from
Corporate Officer at Aurangabad and after receipt of the
necessary approval, the applicant rushed by appointing
Advocate to institute a appeal. It is also submitted
that enhancement made by the Reference Court is based on
guesswork.
9) The aforesaid cause, which is again unverifiable,
hardly constitutes sufficient cause in the facts and
circumstances of the case. On the basis of such
unverifiable and self-serving statements, delay which is
quite inordinate, cannot be condoned.
10) The learned counsel for the applicants submits that
the Government is impersonal agency, which has
necessarily act through its Officers and therefore, it
is necessary to show greater latitude to the Government
(8) 28 - CA 10848 of 2017 & Ors.
Agencies in cases of condonation of delay. The submission
is quite correct. However, some latitude does not extend
to condonation of inordinate delay, particularly when the
explanation is quite casual, unverifiable and hardly
constitutes sufficient cause.
11) Similar contentions have been rejected not only by
this Court, but also by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
12) 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 land-losers to courts of law years after the
termination of legal proceedings would not serve any
(9) 28 - CA 10848 of 2017 & Ors.
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
they cannot be excluded from consideration. In cases
with which we are concerned, no such facts have been
either pleaded or proved.
13) In Registrar of Companies vs. Rajshree Sugar &
( 10 ) 28 - CA 10848 of 2017 & Ors.
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.
14) 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
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.
( 11 ) 28 - CA 10848 of 2017 & Ors.
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.
15) 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
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
( 12 ) 28 - CA 10848 of 2017 & Ors.
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
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.
( 13 ) 28 - CA 10848 of 2017 & Ors.
16) 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
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
( 14 ) 28 - CA 10848 of 2017 & Ors.
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.
17) 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
( 15 ) 28 - CA 10848 of 2017 & Ors.
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.
18) Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts and
circumstances of the present case, no case is made out
for condonation of delay in institution of appeals.
19) The Civil Applications are dismissed. As a
consequence, the appeals and Civil Applications seeking
stay do not survive and the same are also disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
[M.S.SONAK, J.]
SPT/28 - CA 10848 of 2017 & Ors.
