The District Collector vs P Veera Babu on 8 January, 2026

                                                                                         CMP No.25085 of 2025
                                                                                   and WA SR No.133392 of 2025

                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   DATED: 08.01.2026

                                                             CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,
                                                   CHIEF JUSTICE
                                                       AND
                                     THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

                                               C.M.P.No.25085 of 2025
                                            and W.A.SR No.133392 of 2025


                     1. The District Collector
                        Office of District Collector,
                        4th floor, Singaravelar Maligai,
                        Chennai District.

                     2. The Special Commissioner
                        Commissioner of Land Reforms,
                        Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

                     3. The Competent Authority
                        (Urban and Land Ceiling)
                        Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax,
                        Poonamallee, Chennai.

                                                                                        Petitioner(s)/
                                                                                        Appellant(s)
                                                                 Vs

                     P Veera Babu
                     S/o.Late Purushothaman,
                     Plot No.1, Thirumal Nagar 1st Street,
                     Puthagaram, Chennai - 600 099.

                                                                                        Respondent(s)
                     _____________
                     Page 1 of 11




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis               ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:41:31 pm )
                                                                                              CMP No.25085 of 2025
                                                                                        and WA SR No.133392 of 2025



                     PRAYER in C.M.P.No.25085 of 2025: Petition filed under Section 5 of
                     the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 737 days in filing the
                     appeal.


                     PRAYER in WA SR No.133392 of 2025: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of
                     Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 13.7.2023 passed by the
                     learned Single Judge in W.P.No.28312 of 2021.


                                      For Appellant(s):         Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar
                                                                State Government Pleader

                                                           ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

In support of the prayer seeking condonation of delay of 737

days, all that has been stated in the affidavit is as below:

“7. Further, it is submitted that, the 3 rd Appellant herein, in addition to Ambattur jurisdiction has also to handle 2 more jurisdictions viz., Poonamallee & Madhavaram. The 3rd appellant has to perform duties pertaining to both the Acts mentioned below in respect of more than 168 Revenue Villages comprised within aforesaid 3 jurisdictions i. Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,

ii. Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966/Amendment Act, 1991.

_____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:41:31 pm )

It is also evident that delay caused due to pure administrative reasons as well as usual legal procedures adopted by this department before preferring an appeal.”

2. To say the least, no cause, much less sufficient cause, has

been shown. It appears that the officials concerned dealing with

the files were completely indolent and sat over the matter without

doing anything.

3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in umpteen number of

judgments, held that the period of limitation is required to be

explained by the State and it does not stand on any exalted

position.

(i) In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. V. Bherulal 1,

it was found that the appeal filed by the State was with delay of 663

days. The cause shown for inordinate delay in that case was due to

unavailability of documents and the process of arranging documents

and also a reference to bureaucratic process works. In the aforesaid

factual context, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, observed as

(2020) 10 SCC 654 _____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:41:31 pm )

below:

"3. No doubt, some leeway is given for the Government inefficiencies but the sad part is that the authorities keep on relying on judicial pronouncements for a period of time when technology had not advanced and a greater leeway was given to the Government (Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. MANU/SC/0460/1987 : (1987) 2 SCC 107). This position is more than elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. MANU/SC/0132/2012 : (2012) 3 SCC 563 where the Court observed as under: "27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.

28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a

_____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:41:31 pm )

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. _____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:41:31 pm )

The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.

30. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay."

Eight years hence the judgment is still unheeded!"

(ii) In another decision in the case of State of Maharashtra v.

Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd 2, also, in the

factual context of long delay of 75 days, the explanation was found

to be short of any sufficient cause. The explanation in the aforesaid

case was noted in para 67 of the said judgment as below:

"67. That apart, on the facts of this appeal, there is a long delay of 75 days beyond the period of 60 days provided by the Commercial Courts Act. Despite the fact that a certified copy of the District Court's judgment was obtained by the respondent on 27.04.2019, the appeal was filed only on 09.09.2019, the explanation for delay

(2021) 6 SCC 460 _____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:41:31 pm )

being:

‘2. That, the certified copy of the order dated 01/04/2013 was received by the appellant on 27/04/2019. Thereafter the matter was placed before the CGM purchase MPPKVVCL for the compliance of the order. The same was then sent to the law officer, MPPKVVCL for opinion.

3. That after taking opinion for appeal and approval of the concerned authorities, the officer-in-charge was appointed vide order dated 23/07/2019.

4. That, thereafter due to bulky records of the case and for procurement of the necessary documents some delay has been caused however, the appeal has been prepared and filed to pursuant to the same and further delay.

5. That due to the aforesaid procedural approval and since the appellant is a public entity formed under the Energy department of the State Government, the delay caused in filing the appeal is bonafide and which deserve[s] to be condoned.’”

However the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not satisfied with the _____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:41:31 pm )

cause shown on the above lines and it was held as below:

"66. This explanation falls woefully short of making out any sufficient cause. This appeal is therefore allowed and the condonation of delay is set aside on this score also."

(iii) In a recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of

Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board3, it is observed thus:

“261. Thus, for the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order of the High Court deserves to be set aside. Before we proceed to close this judgment, we deem it appropriate to make it abundantly clear that administrative lethargy and laxity can never stand as a sufficient ground for condonation of delay, and we want to convey an emphatic message to all the High Courts that delays shall not be condoned on frivolous and superficial grounds, until a proper case of sufficient cause is made out, wherein the State-machinery is able to establish that it acted with bona fides and remained vigilant all throughout. Procedure is a handmaid to justice, as is famously said. But courts, and more particularly the constitutional courts, ought not to obviate the procedure for a litigating State agency, who also equally suffer the bars of limitation from pursuing litigations due to its own lackadaisical attitude.

2025 INSC 1104 _____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:41:31 pm )

262. The High Courts ought not give a legitimizing effect to such callous attitude of State authorities or its instrumentalities, and should remain extra cautious, if the party seeking condonation of delay is a State-authority.

They should not become surrogates for State laxity and lethargy. The constitutional courts ought to be cognizant of the apathy and pangs of a private litigant. Litigants cannot be placed in situations of perpetual litigations, wherein the fruits of their decrees or favourable orders are frustrated at later stages. We are at pains to reiterate this everlasting trend, and put all the High Courts to notice, not to reopen matters with inordinate delay, until sufficient cause exists, as by doing so the courts only add insult to the injury, more particularly in appeals under Section 100 of the CPC, wherein its jurisdiction is already limited to questions of law.”

4. As the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the

application do not constitute sufficient cause, the application is

dismissed. Consequently, WA SR is rejected. There shall be no

order as to costs.

It is open for the State to take appropriate disciplinary action _____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:41:31 pm )

against those officials, whose inaction and whimsical negligence,

was the reason for the appeal being filed beyond the period of

limitation.

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 08.01.2026

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No sasi

_____________