Bombay High Court
The Executive Engineer, L.M.I. ... vs Murlidhar Chimnaji Gawale And Anr on 25 January, 2018
Bench: M.S. Sonak
{1}
ca2426.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2426 OF 2017 IN
FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 32946 OF 2016
The Executive Engineer
L.M.I. Division, Latur
Tq. & Dist. Latur. Applicant
Versus
1 Gunderao s/o Dattatraya Joshi
age 90 years, occ. agril.,
r/o Thodga, TQ. Ahmedpur
Dist. Latur.
2 The State of Maharashtra
through Collector, Latur. Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2428 OF 2017 IN
FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 32949 OF 2016
The Executive Engineer
L.M.I. Division, Latur
Tq. & Dist. Latur. Applicant
Versus
1 Murlidhar s/o Chimnaji Gawale
age 60 years, occ. agril
r/o Thodga, Tq. Ahmedpur
Dist. Latur.
2 The State of Maharashtra
through Collector, Latur. Respondents
Mr. V.R. Sonwalkar, advocate for applicant.
Mr. B.V. Virdhe, AGP for respondent no. 2.
::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2018 01:22:48 :::
{2}
ca2426.17.odt
CORAM : M.S. SONAK, J.
DATE : 25th JANUARY, 2018
ORAL ORDER :
1. In these civil applications, condonation of delay of 1447 days,
in instituting appeals against order made by Reference Court, is
applied for.
2. Respondent no 1 has already expired and there is delay in
taking steps to bring in record his legal representatives in each of
the applications. That apart, from perusal of civil applications, it
is seen that there is no sufficient cause made out to condone such
inordinate delay.
3. In the civil applications, it is stated that the impugned
awards were made on 24.02.2012 and thereafter, the advocate
intimated this fact to the appellants. The advocate applied for
certified copy on 19.03.2012 and, it is stated to have been received
on 27.07.2012. Certified copy was then submitted to the
appellant/applicant.
4. It is stated that the matter was referred to the higher
authorities for taking decision and, there was some delay on the
part of the higher authorities in taking decision to file appeal.
After the decision was taken, there was further delay in forwarding
the case papers to the advocate alongwith Court fees and other
details. Finally, it is submitted that all that are the reasons beyond
the control of the applicants and, therefore, delay may be
condoned. It is also stated that these matters involve public
money and, in order to prevent wastage of public money, delay is
{3}
ca2426.17.odt
required to be condoned.
5. The aforesaid grounds do not constitute sufficient cause to
explain inordinate delay of 1447 days. On the basis of such facts
and by styling the same as the events beyond the control of
applicants, delay cannot be condoned.
6. The averments in the applications seeking condonation, are
quite casual and unverifiable. On basis of such routine averments,
the acquiring body, 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 plight of land losers, who have been
deprived of compensation for several years. cannot be ignored.
7. In Pundlik Jalam Patil (Dead) By Lrs. vs. Executive Engineer,
reported in [ (2008) 17 SCC
Jalgaon, Medium Project and anr .,
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
{4}
ca2426.17.odt
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.
8. In Registrar of Companies vs. Rajshree Sugar & Chemicals
Ltd. and ors .,
reported
2(2000) 6 SCC 133] , the Hon'ble
in [
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.
9. 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. 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,
{5}
ca2426.17.odt
within legal parameters.
10. In Postmaster General and Ors. vs. Living Media India Limited
4(2012) 3 SCC 563] , the Hon'ble Supreme
and anr. , reported in [
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
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
{6}
ca2426.17.odt
delay.
11. 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 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 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.
12. 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
{7}
ca2426.17.odt
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.
13. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present
case, there is no case made out to condone the delay. The
applications for condonation of delay are therefore dismissed. As a
result, the main appeal as well as the application for stay do not
survive and the same are also disposed of.
( M.S. SONAK, J. )
dyb
