The Commissioner, Nashik ... vs Kailash Eknath Bankar And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 8065 Bom

P.H. Jayani                                                    22 IA1174.2021.doc

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1174 OF 2021
                                      WITH
                      INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1175 OF 2021
                                        IN
                        FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 4467 OF 2021

The Commissioner,
Nashik Municipal Corporation, Nashik                     .... Applicant
           v/s.
Kailash Eknath Bankar and anr.                           .... Respondents

Mr. M.L. Patil for the Applicant.
Mr. Anil Ahuja for the Respondent.
Mr. A.R. Patil, Addl. GP for the State.

                                    CORAM: SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.

DATED : 18th JUNE, 2021.

P. C. :-

ORDER IN INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1174 OF 2021 :-

. The Applicant herein who is the Acquiring Body has sought to

condone the delay in challenging the order dated 04/09/2018 passed

by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik under Section 18 of the

Land Acquisition Act.

2. Mr. Anil Ahuja, learned counsel for the Respondent opposes the

Application on the ground that no sufficient grounds have been made

to condone the delay.

P.H. Jayani 22 IA1174.2021.doc

3. It is stated that the certified copies of the judgment and award

were delivered on 20.02.2019 and received by the advocate only on

01.04.2020. It is claimed that though the decision was taken to

challenge the judgment, the Appeals could not be filed due to National

Lockdown from 23/03/2020.

4. It is a settled law that while considering the prayer for

condonation of delay, the Court is required to consider the sufficiency

of the cause shown. In the instant case, the cause shown from

23/03/2020 i.e., from the date of lockdown is understandable and

constitutes sufficient cause. The question is about the delay from

20/02/2019 till 23/03/2020 i.e., from the date the certified copy of the

judgment was received till the date the lockdown was declared. The

explanation tendered across the bar is that the file has to move many

tables for grant of approval. In the case of State of Haryana v/s.

Chandra Mani and anr. AIR 1996 SC 1623, wherein the three Judge

Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court after taking note of several other

decisions held that when the State as an Applicant prays for

condonation of delay, it is common knowledge that on account of

impersonal machinery and the inherited bureaucratic methodology

imbued with the note making, file pushing and passing the buck ethos,

P.H. Jayani 22 IA1174.2021.doc

delay on the part of the State is less difficult to understand though

more difficult to approve. It is held that the State which represents

collective cause of community does not deserve a litigant non-gratis

status. The Apex Court has referred to the decision in G. Ramegowda,

Major, Etc. v/s. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore (1988) 2

SCC 142 where delay of over one year was condoned. It was held that

the expression 'sufficient cause' should receive liberal construction as to

advance substantial justice and generally delay in preferring an appeal

are required to be condoned where there is no gross delay, deliberate

inaction or lack of bonafides. It is further held that if Appeals brought

by Government are lost for such defaults, no person is individually

affected but what, in ultimate analyses, suffers is public interest. The

Apex Court held that though the law of limitation is equally applicable

to the private citizens and the Government authorities, the Court

cannot ignore the impact on public interest owing to acts of fraud or

bad faiths on the part of its officers or agents, where the officers where

clearly at cross-purposes with it. It was held that in assessing what

constitutes 'sufficient cause', it might be unrealistic to exclude from

consideration these factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of

the functioning of the Government.

P.H. Jayani 22 IA1174.2021.doc

5. In the instant case, the delay does not appear to be due deliberate

inaction or lack of bonafides, but is the cause of bureaucratic red-

tapism which as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, cannot be

approved yet cannot be ignored. Declining to condone the delay in

filing an Appeal will impact the public interest as the enhanced amount

will have to be ultimately paid from public exchequer. Hence, the

delay is condoned subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees

Five Thousand) to each of the Claimants

6. Interim Application No.1174 of 2021 stands disposed of.

ORDER IN INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1175 OF 2021 :-

7. Execution and implementation of the impugned judgment and

award dated 04/09/2018 shall be stayed subject to the deposit of the

entire compensation along with interest and statutory deposits within a

period of six weeks from today. In the event, the said amount is not

deposited within a period of six weeks, the stay will be vacated without

further reference to this Court.

8. Interim Application No. 1175 of 2021 stands disposed of.

(SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)