Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Smt. Mankunwar on 13 October, 2023
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
SECOND APPEAL No. 2190 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH JILADISH DIST.
MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE TEHSILDAR SHAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(MS. GEETANJALI CHAURASIA, LEARNED GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE
FOR THE APPELLANTS/STATE)
AND
1. SMT. MANKUNWAR W/O SARDARSINGH JADON,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEWORK R/O MANPURA
BUJURG, TEHSIL BHANPURA DIST. MANDSAUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SHAKTI SINGH S/O SARDAR SINGH JADAUN, AGED
ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
MANPURA BUZURG, THESIL MANPURA DISTRICT
MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SHIVLAL S/O LALJI BAGRI, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
ANKALI SHIVDAS TEHSIL SHAMGARH, DISTRICT
MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. BANSHILAL S/O LALAJI BAGRI, AGED ABOUT 45
YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABORER ALAMGARH
(SHAMGARH) (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI JAGDISH BAHETI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS
NO.1 AND 2)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 13-10-2023
17:01:40
2
(SHRI ANENDRA SINGH PARIHAR, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENTS NO.3 AND 4)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 10.10.2023
Pronounced on : 13.10.2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This miscellaneous Civil Case having been heard and reserved
for orders, coming on for pronouncement this day, Justice Achal Kumar
Paliwal pronounced the following
ORDER
Heard on I.A.No.6430/2022 an application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act for condonation of delay.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants/State submits that the
present appeal is delayed by 2490 days (as per registry estimate delay is
2301 days). She, after referring to the additional affidavits and other
documents, submits that the above delay has been reasonably/sufficiently
explained by the State. Separate affidavit has been filed explaining the
delay from 2016 to 2019. In the instant case, appellant is State and in
Government machinery, processing of the case for appeal takes time,
therefore, the delay in filing the appeal be condoned.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that
appellants/State has not explained delay of 2490/2301 days. No document
in support of the averments made in the application and the affidavits
have been filed, therefore, just because appellant is State, such huge delay
in filing the appeal cannot be condoned. In this context, learned counsel
for the respondents has relied upon the judgment in the case of Post
Master General and others Vs. Living Media India Limited and
another (2012) 3 SCC 563, Pundlik Jalam Patil (dead) by LRs. Vs.
Executive Engineer Jalgaon Medium Project and another (2008) 17
SCC 448, State of Odisha (Vigilance) Vs. Purna Chandra Kandi SLP
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 13-10-2023
17:01:40
(Criminal) Diary No(s).29657/2019. Hence, it is urged that application
and consequently appeal be dismissed.
4. Admittedly, the present second appeal has been filed on
27.09.2022 challenging judgment and decree passed by Additional
District Judge, Garoth, district Mandsaur on 11.03.2016 in RCA No.22-
A/2012-26-A/2012.
5. It is apparent from the application and affidavits filed by the
appellants that no documents, supporting the averments in the
application/affidavits etc. have been filed.
6. In the instant case, State is involved, therefore, it would be
appropriate to refer the principles regarding condonation of delay
involving State.
7. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Post Master General (Supra)
has held as under:-
"22. In Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Bombay vs.
Amateur Riders Club, Bombay, 1994 Supp (2) SCC
603................................
After incorporating the above explanation, this Court
refused to condone the delay by observing thus:
"3. ... .... Having regard to the law of limitation which binds
everybody, we cannot find any way of granting relief. It is
true that Government should not be treated as any other
private litigant as, indeed, in the case of the former the
decisions to present and prosecute appeals are not
individual but are institutional decisions necessarily bogged
down by the proverbial red-tape. But there are limits to this
also. Even with all this latitude, the explanation offered for
the delay in this case merely serves to aggravate the attitude
of indifference of the Revenue in protecting its common
interests. The affidavit is again one of the stereotyped
affidavits making it susceptible to the criticism that the
Revenue does not seem to attach any importance to the need
for promptitude even where it affects its own
interest."
[Emphasis supplied].
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 13-10-2023
17:01:40
23. In Pundlik Jalam Patil (dead) by LRS. vs. Executive
Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and Another, (2008) 17
SC 448, the question was whether the respondent-Executive
Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project had shown sufficient
cause to condone the delay of 1724 days in filing appeals
before the High Court. In para 17, this Court held:
"17.....The evidence on record suggests neglect of its
own right for long time in preferring appeals. The court
cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the
ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The court helps
those who are vigilant and "do not slumber over their
rights".
24. After referring various earlier decisions, taking
very lenient view in condoning the delay, particularly, on
the part of the Government and Government
Undertaking, this Court observed as under:-
"29. It needs no restatement at our hands that the object for
fixing time-limit for litigation is based on public policy
fixing a lifespan for legal remedy for the purpose of general
welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort
to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly.
Salmond in his Jurisprudence states that the laws come to
the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy.
30. Public interest undoubtedly is a paramount
consideration in exercising the courts' discretion wherever
conferred upon it by the relevant statutes. Pursuing stale
claims and multiplicity of proceedings in no manner
subserves public interest. Prompt and timely payment of
compensation to the land-losers facilitating their
rehabilitation/resettlement is equally an integral part of
public policy. Public interest demands that the State or the
beneficiary of acquisition, as the case may be, should not be
allowed to indulge in any act to unsettle the settled legal
rights accrued in law by resorting to avoidable litigation
unless the claimants are guilty of deriving benefit to which
they are otherwise not entitled, in any fraudulent manner.
One should not forget the basic fact that what is acquired is
not the land but the livelihood of the landlosers. 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 landlosers 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 13-10-2023
17:01:40
explanation of such delay on the ground of involvement of
public revenue. It serves no public interest."
28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter
of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence
or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal
concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice,
we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the
Department cannot take advantage of various earlier
decisions. 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.
29. 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/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 departments.
The law shelters everyone under the same light and should
not be swirled for the benefit of a few".
8. In the case of State of Odisha (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court
has held that :-
"We do not find that the delay is satisfactorily explained in
terms of the judgment of this Court in the case of Post
Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr.
reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563, A mere government
inefficiency cannot be a ground for condoning the delay. It
is for the petitioner to put its own house in order.
The special leave petition is dismissed on the ground of
limitation."
9. In the case of Post Master General (Supra) there was delay of
427 days and application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for
condonation of delay was dismissed by Hon'ble Apex Court. From the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 13-10-2023
17:01:40
principles of law laid down in the case of Post Master General (Supra), it
is clear that huge delay cannot be condoned just on the ground that State
is involved in the matter and application for condonation of delay has
been filed by the State.
10. It is apparent from the record of the case that in the instant
case, there is huge delay of 2490/2301 days in filing the present appeal
and no sufficient cause for such huge delay, supported by relevant
documents, has been established. Thus, appellant/State has failed to
establish cogent and sufficient reasons to condone such a huge delay,
therefore, delay in filing the present appeal cannot be condoned.
Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, such huge delay
cannot be condoned.
11. Hence, I.A.No.6430/2022 filed by the appellant/State under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed. Resultantly, the appeal filed
by the appellant/State is also dismissed as time barred.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
RJ
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 13-10-2023
17:01:40
