[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand vs Lal Jay Kumar Nath Shahdeo & Another on 23 March, 2026
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 374 of 2025
The State of Jharkhand, through Secretary, Land & Revenue,
Ranchi & Others ..... Appellants
Versus
Lal Jay Kumar Nath Shahdeo & Another ..... Respondents
-----
CORAM
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Appellants: Mr. Aditya Raman, A.C. to G.A.-III
For the Respondents: Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate
-----
06/23.03.2026
I.A. No. 9018 of 2025:
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present interlocutory application seeks condonation of delay of
347 days in instituting the present appeal.
3. The respondents have filed counter affidavit contesting the facts
and circumstances set out in the present interlocutory application.
4. The applicants have also filed supplementary affidavits in this
matter furnishing details in support of the reasons set out in the
present interlocutory application.
5. We have considered the averments made in the present
interlocutory application, counter affidavit and supplementary
affidavits. We have also considered the documents accompanying
the affidavits filed by the parties. We are satisfied that this delay is
required to be condoned upon payment of cost. The brief reasons
for this conclusion are set out hereafter.
6. One of the grounds stated in the present interlocutory application
as well as supplementary affidavits is that the subject matter of
these proceedings in which the impugned order has been passed
by the learned Single Judge was Khata No. 383, Plot Nos. 492 &
496 of Village-Pundag, District-Ranchi. This very property was also
the subject matter of L.P.A. No. 91 of 2019 which was dismissed by
the Co-ordinate Bench on 21.01.2021. The State carried the matter
further by instituting S.L.P. (C) No. 1608 of 2022 before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
7. Vide order dated 29.04.2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued
notices and directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard
to the possession of the property in question. It has been stated in
the present interlocutory application that several other petitions
have been filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in which status
quo orders have been passed and the SLPs are pending
consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
8. There is also reference to the directions passed by the Co-ordinate
Bench in L.P.A No. 318 of 2022 in the context of issuing rent
receipts over the property bearing Khata No. 383.
9. The present interlocutory application states that the appellants
were under bona fide impression that the orders passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in relation to the very same property would
prevail over the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which is
impugned in the accompanying L.P.A. Therefore, no necessity was
felt to immediately prefer an appeal. However, when contempt
proceedings were initiated, a decision was taken to appeal the
learned Single Judge's order by way of abundant precaution. The
present interlocutory application also states about the steps taken
for preferring this appeal.
10. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is
pointed out that the State is still issuing rent receipts and did not
experience any difficulties for issuing such rent receipts, despite the
status quo orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
11. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the respondents, referred
to the counter affidavit in an attempt to point out that the
properties involved in the two above referred litigations were not
the same as the properties involved in the present matter.
12. However, upon considering the reply, we are satisfied that the
impression the applicants have about the status quo order of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court prevailing over the order of the learned
Single Judge cannot be deemed unreasonable or merely designed
to secure condonation of delay. The issue is not whether this
impression is correct or incorrect. In the facts of the present case,
this impression cannot be considered mala fide; it appears to be
bona fide, especially given that in the L.P.A., the properties
involved were prima facie the same as those involved in the
present matter.
13. In the case N. Balakrishnan vs M. Krishnamurthy, reported in
(1998) 7 SCC 123, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in every
case of delay, there may be some lapse on the part of the litigant
concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and
shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of
mala fides or is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy, the
Court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when
there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned
by the party deliberately to gain time, the Court should lean against
acceptance of the explanation. While condoning delay, the Court
should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in
mind that he is a loser and he too would have incurred quite a
large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when
Courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the
applicant, the Court shall compensate the opposite party for his
loss.
14. In this case, as noted earlier, the explanation given does not smack
of any mala fides. It cannot be said to be put forth as a part of
dilatory strategy. This is also not the case where the State has
sought to deliberately gain time by delaying the filing of the L.P.A.
15. Therefore, upon a cumulative consideration of the above facts and
circumstances, we are satisfied that this is a fit case for condoning
the delay, subject to the State paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the
respondents within four weeks from today. The cost must either be
paid or deposited in this Court within four weeks.
16. At this stage, Mr Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the
respondents, submits that the respondents do not want the costs
of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid, as it would ultimately be paid from the
State exchequer. Accordingly, we direct the appellants/applicants to
pay this amount in favour of the Advocates' Association Welfare &
Development Fund, Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi.
17. The present interlocutory application is allowed in the above terms.
L.P.A. No. 374 of 2025:
18. If the costs are paid or deposited within four weeks, list this matter
under the heading "For Admission" on 27.04.2026.
(M. S. Sonak, C.J.)
(RAJESH SHANKAR, J.)
23.03.2026
Satish/Vikas/
