The State Of Maharashtra And Ors vs Barkubai Rodaji Kokani
2018 Latest Caselaw 44 Bom

                                    (1)              34-CA 15424 of 2017 & ors.



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

          34 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.15424 OF 2017
IN FAST/39803/2017 WITH CA/15425/2017 IN FAST/39803/2017 

1)    The State of Maharashtra
      Through Collector, Dhule.

2)    The Special Land Acquisition Officer-I,
      Dhule, Tal. & Dist.Dhule.

3)    The Executive Engineer,
      Medium Irrigation Project, Dhule             ..Applicants

                       Versus

Onkar Manaji Kokani
Age: Major, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o.Dapur, Tq.Sakri,
Dist.Dhule.                                        ..Respondents

                                  ...
                Advocate for Applicants : Mr.A.M.Phule
                                  ...

                           WITH 
  CA/15426/2017 IN FAST/39834/2017 WITH CA/15427/2017 IN
                     FAST/39834/2017 
                           WITH 
  CA/15428/2017 IN FAST/39841/2017 WITH CA/15429/2017 IN
                     FAST/39841/2017 
                            WITH
  CA/15430/2017 IN FAST/39838/2017 WITH CA/15432/2017 IN
                      FAST/39838/2017




     ::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2018         ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 00:54:27 :::
                                     (2)                34-CA 15424 of 2017 & ors.




                                    CORAM :  M.S.SONAK, J.

DATE : 4.1.2018

ORAL JUDGMENT:-

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

in each of these applications.

2) By these Civil Applications, the applicants are

seeking condonation of delay of 1590 days in instituting

appeals against the Judgment and Award dated 4.5.2013

made by the Reference Court enhancing the compensation

awarded to the respondents/claimants.

3) Mr.Phule, learned AGP submits that since the

applicant is impersonal agency, the issue of condonation

of delay may be liberally considered. He submits that

decisions are required to be taken at different levels

and this necessarily resulted in 'some delay'. He

submits that the applicants have good case to succeed on

merits and discretion may be exercised to condone the

(3) 34-CA 15424 of 2017 & ors.

delay. He submits that the explanation furnished in the

Civil Applications constitutes sufficient cause and

therefore, delay may be condoned.

4) Mr.Phule, learned AGP submits that in such matters,

the length of delay is not relevant but what is relevant

is the explanation offered. He relied on the decisions

of the Supreme Court in the cases of N.Balakrishnan vs

M. Krishnamurthy, reported in [1998 (7) SCC 123], and

Collector Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji & Ors,

reported in [1987 (2) SCC 107]. For all these reasons,

Mr.Phule, learned AGP submits that this is a fit case for

condonation of delay.

5) In this case, certified copies of the impugned

Judgment and Award dated 4.5.2013 were applied on

4.8.2016 and the same were received on 11.8.2016. There

was absolutely no explanation as to why it took over

three years to apply for certified copy of the impugned

(4) 34-CA 15424 of 2017 & ors.

Judgment and Award, particularly, since it is the case of

the applicants that the Reference Court has enhanced the

compensation almost 17 times i.e. from Rs.750/- per Are

to Rs.13,200/- per Are. In such a situation the least

that was expected was that the certified copies could be

applied for within some reasonable time for examining

whether or not the Award needs to be appealed.

6) In the Civil Applications, there is no explanation

as to why it took three years to apply for certified

copies of the impugned Judgment and Award. After the

certified copies of the Judgment and Award were obtained,

the appeals alongwith condonation of delay have been

instituted only on 8.12.2017 i.e. after a period one year

from the date of receipt of certified copies. The

explanation for this delay is also entirely vague. All

that is stated is that legal opinion had to be obtained

from the Office of the Government Pleader and the

Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department. There are vague

(5) 34-CA 15424 of 2017 & ors.

statements about incomplete documents, non-availability

of typed copies and so on. All such explanations hardly

suffice to explain inordinate delay of almost five years

(1590 days) in instituting all appeals of this nature.

7) The interest of the respondents for getting proper

compensation, whose lands have been acquired cannot be

overlooked. At this point of time, the respondents are

entitled to have the compensation awarded to them left

undisturbed. There is no clarity as to whether till date

the amount determined by the Reference Court has been

paid or not. In all probabilities, such amount has yet

not been paid. It is therefore, possible that only

purpose of instituting these appeals is to seek some

justification for unreasonable delay in payment of

compensation to respondents/claimants. If this is so, it

cannot be said that the applications for seeking

condonation of delay have been made in good faith. In

any case, the cause shown can hardly be said to be

(6) 34-CA 15424 of 2017 & ors.

sufficient cause.

8) Even, applying a liberal standard prescribed in

N.Balakrishnan (supra) and Mst. Katiji (supra), it is not

possible to condone inordinate and unexplained delay

based upon the vague and unjustifiable grounds set out in

these applications. 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.

                                     (7)                34-CA 15424 of 2017 & ors.




9)    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

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

(8) 34-CA 15424 of 2017 & ors.

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.

10) 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.

11) In Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of

(9) 34-CA 15424 of 2017 & ors.

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.

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.

12) 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

( 10 ) 34-CA 15424 of 2017 & ors.

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

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

( 11 ) 34-CA 15424 of 2017 & ors.

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) 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

( 12 ) 34-CA 15424 of 2017 & ors.

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

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.

14) 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

( 13 ) 34-CA 15424 of 2017 & ors.

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

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.

15) Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts and

( 14 ) 34-CA 15424 of 2017 & ors.

circumstances of the present case, it is clear that no

sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of delay

of over four years i.e.1590 days in institution of the

appeals. The Civil Applications are therefore, liable to

be dismissed and are hereby dismissed. There shall be no

order as to costs. As a consequence of dismissal of the

Civil Applications, the Appeals and the Civil

Applications pending therein also stand disposed of.

[M.S.SONAK, J.]

SPT/34-CA 15424 of 2017 & ors.