Bombay High Court
Maha. Industiral Devp. ... vs Ismailbhai Gulam Hussain, And ... on 3 August, 2021
Bench: Pushpa V. Ganediwala
32CAO 17.2020 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CIVIL APPLICATION (O) NO. 17 OF 2020
AND CIVIL APPLICATION (O) NO. 18 OF 2020
AND CIVIL APPLICATION (O) NO. 19 OF 2020
IN CIVIL APPLICATION (F) NO. 1799 OF 2016
IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 17143 OF 2015
(Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Ismailbhai Gulam Hussai (dead) &
Anr.)
__________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for the applicant/
appellant.
Shri S.C. Mehadia, Advocate for LRs of respondent
No.1.
Shri A.M. Kadukar, A.G.P. for respondent No.2.
.....
CORAM : PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.
AUGUST 03, 2021.
Heard.
2] By way of these applications, the
applicant/ appellant MIDC is seeking permission to
bring the legal representatives of respondent No.1 on
record by condoning delay of 1631 days in setting
aside abatement. The proposed legal representatives
raised objections by filing their reply-affidavit.
3] The reasons for delay is stated to be that
the fact of death of respondent No.1, who expired on
27/03/2015 came to the knowledge of the appellant
when bailiff's report returned un-served because of
death of respondent No.1. Thereafter, it is stated that
the names of the legal representatives of respondent
No.1 came to the knowledge of the appellant from
the execution proceedings pending before the Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Akola.
4] Shri Mehadia, learned counsel for the
proposed legal representatives, strongly opposed the
application for want of sufficient reasons and the
callous, casual and lackadaisical attitude of the
officers of the appellant corporation in proceeding
with the matter since beginning.
5] I have considered the submissions on
behalf of both the sides. At the outset, the appellant
has mentioned the following reasons for causing
delay in para 2 and 3 of the application, which are
reproduced below :
"It is submitted that on 29.03.2017 this
Hon'ble Court issued notices to the
respondent. However, the bailif report
showed that the above respondent no.1 had
expired. The counsel for appellant
immediately informed the appellant/
corporation as well as local panel counsel
for supplying details of the legal heirs of the
respondent no.1. The respondent had
changed the address after acquired land
therefore the corporation has not found the
address of the respondent.
3. On 15.03.2019 the legal of the
respondent no.1 had filed application for
legal heirs of the respondent no.1 in the
execution before the Civil Judge Senior
Division, Akola. It is submitted that as per
application in the execution the respondent
no.1 had expired on 27.03.2015 and
following are the legal heirs of respondent
no.1.
XXXX"
6. A perusal of the record would show that
memo of appeal along with the application for
condonation of delay is presented before this Court
in August-2015. Thereafter, order for issuance of
notice was passed on 29/03/2017. For three months,
the notice could not be issued as the appellant failed
to furnish copy of the appeal memo, and therefore,
the matter came to be dismissed in default vide order
dated 01/08/2017 by the Registrar (Judicial) against
respondent No.1. The application for restoration of
appeal came to be filed in March-2017 with an
application for condonation of delay, and the matter
was restored vide order dated 05/02/2018.
7. Thereafter, notice issued to respondent
No.1 returned un-served as he was reported to be
dead. As the appellant failed to take steps in spite of
sufficient time was granted on 18/09/2018,
09/10/2018, 29/11/2018 and 08/01/2019, no steps
were taken, and hence, the matter stood abated
against respondent No.1 vide order of the Registrar
(Judicial) dated 29/01/2019. Again on 16/07/2019,
11/09/2019, 25/09/2019 and 04/12/2019, sufficient
time was granted to the learned counsel for the
appellant to take steps about the death of respondent
No.1. The present applications came to be filed on
18/12/2019.
8. The aforesaid series of events in
handling the matter by the appellant, a statutory
corporation having its own full-fledged legal
department dealing with thousands of land
acquisition cases, reflects the casual, callous and
lackadaisical attitude of all the concerned, who are
handling the land acquisition cases against the land
losers/ poor farmers.
9. The Division Bench of this Court, in
which I was a member, on 25/09/2019 passed a
judgment in Civil Application (F) No. 3497/2019 In
First Appeal St. No. 29903/2018, wherein the
Division Bench of this Court, in para 12, had relied
on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
delivered in the case of Postmaster General & Ors. Vs.
Living Media India Limited & Anr., (2012) 3 SCC
563, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court while
declining to condone delay of 427 days in preferring
Special Leave Petition has observed thus :
"XXXX In our view, 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/ year 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 departments. The
law shelters everyone under the same light
and should not be swirled for the benefit
of a few XXX"
Further, this Court in para 13 had also
relied on the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Registrar of Companies
Vs. Rajshree Sugar and Chemicals Limited & Ors.
(2000) 6 SCC 133 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that though some latitude has to be
shown to the Government in deciding the question of
delay, that does not give license to the officers of the
Government to shirk their responsibility to act with
reasonable expedition.
10. Considering the aforesaid legal position,
I would have rejected the applications out-rightly,
however, it is informed by Shri Mehadia, learned
counsel for the appellant, that there are eight
connected appeals which are also pending before this
Court for adjudication wherein the lands of the
family members of respondent No.1 were acquired
out of the same notification.
11. Therefore, as the issue which is involved
in this case is pending decision of this Court in other
appeals, and in order to avoid inconsistency in
adjudication of the market value for the similarly
situated lands acquired under the same notification, I
am constrained to condone delay and permit the
appellant to bring the legal representatives of
respondent No.1 on record by recalling order of
setting aside abatement, however, subject to cost of
Rs.10,000/- to be deposited by the appellant with the
High Court Bar Association, Nagpur.
12. The Civil Applications stand disposed of.
JUDGE
Sumit
