Land Acquisition Officer vs Jitendra Kalal
2022 Latest Caselaw 15720 MP

                                                                      1
                                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                              AT INDORE
                                                                   BEFORE
                                                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
                                                          ON THE 29th OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                                                         FIRST APPEAL No. 667 of 2022

                                           BETWEEN:-
                                   1.      LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER INDIRA SAGAR
                                           CANAL PROJECT LAND ACQUISITION OFFICE,
                                           BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                   2.      EXECUTIVE           ENGINEER NARMADA
                                           DEVELOPMENT DIV. NO. 14 THIKRI (MADHYA
                                           PRADESH)

                                   3.      STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR
                                           B ARWAN I , COLLECTOR OFFICE, DISTRICT
                                           BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                .....APPELLANT
                                           (SHRI VIVEK PATWA, COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS)

                                           AND
                                           JITENDRA KALAL S/O SITARAM KALAL, AGED
                                           ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
                                           R/o GRAM DAWANA, TAHSIL THIKRI, DISTRICT
                                           BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                              .....RESPONDENT
                                           (SHRI VINDHYAVASHINI PRASAD KHARE, COUNSEL FOR THE
                                           RESPONDENT)

                                         T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
                                   following:
                                                                       ORDER

Heard on I.A.No. 3079/2022 which is application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act.

T h e present appeal is filed against the judgment passed by II Addl.District Judge, Barwani dated 25.04.2019 whereby learned reference court

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MUKTA CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL Signing time: 11/30/2022 5:36:12 PM

has enhanced the amount awarded by the appellants.

There is delay of 1102 days in filing the present appeal. It is stated that impugned order was brought to the notice of OIC of the case only when the notice of the execution proceeding were received, thereafter the certified copy was obtained and opinion of the Government counsel was sought. On receiving the opinion from the counsel, the matter was forwarded to the Law Department to take necessary permission for filing appeal which was awaited, but in the meantime, the Collector Barwani granted permission to file the appeal and OIC was appointed. Besides, in the meantime, appellants were required to be on alert as Sardar Sarovar Dam was in the process of being filled

up and officers were required to be on field for emergency situation. Thereafter. offices of the appellants was closed on account of imposition of lockdown due to spread of corona virus. As soon as the limited lockdown was over and the offices started functioning with limited strength the officer incharge of the case contacted the counsel for filing the appeal who called upon with the record of the case but the same was not available, thereafter the record was collected from various offices and handed over to the counsel, then the appeal could be filed. Thus, delay caused in filing the present appeal is bonafide, on account of administrative exigencies, spread of corona virus resulting in lockdown of offices and for the reasons beyond the control of appellants, therefore the same may be condoned.

T h e appellants have also filed additional affidavit in support of the application of one C.B.Tatwal, Executive Engineer, EE ND, Div No.14 NVDA, Barwani. It is stated that impugned judgment and decree was passed on 25.04.2019 and appeal has been filed on 2.5.2022 after the limitation prescribed for the same. It is reiterated that Sardar Sarovar Dam was required to be filled Signature Not Verified Signed by: MUKTA CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL Signing time: 11/30/2022 5:36:12 PM

with water after the orders passed by the Supreme Court. As the dam is one of the largest and longest with its tail reaching Maheshwar, the entire Barwani district is affected by either submergence or of by the canal network of the projects implemented on Narmada river. At the relevant point of time when the dam was being filled, the entire department its field officers were required to be on high alert and assist the administration to ensure there was no mishap in the entire area of submergence as the ecology as well as other parameters change due to submergence. The process of filling the dam is carried out during and after monsoon rains which is utilized to fill the reservoir. After the order passed by reference court, the department and its officers were required to be on high alert and were involved in field operations for safety and precaution of citizens. Thereafter the dam was filled gradually and all the officers of the appellant department were on field duties till February, 2020. On 23.3.2020 a nationwide lockdown was imposed on account of spread of pandemic and pursuant thereto the Supreme Court in suo motu Writ Petition No. 3/2020 has been pleased to condone the delay till 28.2.2022.

Counsel for the appellants submits that there is total delay of 1102 days and after giving the benefit of the order passed by the Supreme Court in the suo motu writ petition regarding condonation of delay, the appeal would be still barred by 340 days.

Counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer for condonation of delay and submitted that appellants have not disclosed the date of knowledge of award passed by the II ADJ, Barwani and other dates for showing the sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Appellants have not explained the day-to-delay in filing the appeal. Appellants have not shown sufficient cause for condonation

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MUKTA CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL Signing time: 11/30/2022 5:36:12 PM

of delay in filing the aforesaid appeal in view of modern technologies being used and available now-a-days. He also controverted the submissions made in the additional reply filed by appellants and submitted that contentions raised regarding engagement of staff of appellants to fill up the dam in question and document Annx.A/2 filed along with affidavit do not indicate that Officer incharge of the case was also assigned duties in the said work. The officers who have been assigned duties in the said work does not include the rank of Executive Engineer, Narmda Development and therefore, the appellants have failed to make out sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The appeal is hopelessly time barred. It is further submitted that as per order of Supreme Court, the delay for the period 15.3.2020 to 27.2.2022 has been condoned due to Covid 19 but in the present case award was passed on 25.4.2019 and the appellants have failed to explain what action was taken for filing the appeal before imposition of lockdown. The appellants have not explained the delay from the date of passing of the award i.e. 25.4.2019 to 14.3.2022. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of Post Master General Vs. Living Media Ltd., (2012) 3 SCC 563 whereby it has been held that law of limitation binds everybody equally Government and defence. In the case of Amalendu Kumar Bera and othersVs. State of West Bengal, (2013) 4 SCC 52, the Apex Court held that liberal approach in the case of State as litigant is not warranted in absence of sufficient cause. The Court should not take liberal approach in the matter of condonation of delay when State's action in preferring appeal is marred by serious latches and negligence in absence of sufficient cause. He also placed reliance on the judgment passed by Uttarakhand High Court in the case of Jishan Ali Vs. Arbitrator, NHAI/Collector, AIR 2022 Uttarakhand 89 in Signature Not Verified Signed by: MUKTA CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL Signing time: 11/30/2022 5:36:12 PM

which the High Court rejected the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal. The Court held that appellant was required to explain the steps taken from the date of order till imposition of lockdown.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find sufficient cause for condonation of huge delay of 1102 days in filing the appeal. In the present case, the award was passed on 25.4.2019 but the appellants have not taken any action for filing the appeal. The appeal has been filed on 2.5.2022 but appellants have not given any explanation for condonation of delay from the date of award i.e. 25.4.2019 to 14.3.2020 i.e. about 340 days. Thus, even it the period of limitation as per order of Supreme Court is excluded, the appellants have failed to explain the delay of 340 days. This Court does not find any sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of huge delay in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Post Master General (supra) and also in the case of Amalendu Kumar Bera (supra) where the apex Court held that liberal approach in the case of State as litigant is not warranted in absence of sufficient cause. The law laid down in the case of Post Master General (supra) has been reiterated in the case of State of M.P. & Ors. vs. Bherulal, (2020) 10 SCC 654 wherein it has been held that delay cannot be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party in this case. Law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including Government. There is no need to accept usual explanation that file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree o f procedural red tape in process. The condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The Court decline to condone the delay of 663 days.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MUKTA CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL Signing time: 11/30/2022 5:36:12 PM

I n view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, the application for condonation of delay is rejected. As a consequence, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE MK

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MUKTA CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL Signing time: 11/30/2022 5:36:12 PM