Orissa High Court
Land Acquisition Officer vs Khitish Chandra Naik And on 25 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
L.A.A. No. 95 of 2019
Land Acquisition Officer, .... Appellant
Kalahandi Mr. G. Rout, ASC
-versus-
Khitish Chandra Naik and .... Respondents
Others
CORAM:
JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 25.08.2022
04. I.A. No. 7 of 2020 & L.A.A. No. 95 of 2019
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. This Appeal has been preferred against the
judgment dated 28.11.2014, passed by the learned
Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhawaniptana, Kalahandi
in L.A.R. Case No. 180 of 2014 on 06.12.2019.
There is a delay of 1744 days in filing the present
Appeal. Though this I.A. has been filed under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of
delay, but the reasons indicated in the said I.A. are
not convincing and it seems, the delay has not been
properly explained.
3. The apex Court in the case of Office of the
Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vrs. Living
// 2 //
Media India Ltd. & Anr. reported in (2012) 3 SCC
563 observed as under:
"12) 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.
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.
13) 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. 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. Accordingly, the
// 3 //
appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of
delay."
4. Also, in view of the recent judgment/order of this
Court in the case of State of Odisha Vrs. Surama
Manjari Das (W.P.(C) No.15763 of 2021 dismissed
on 16.07.2021), which has been passed relying on
the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vrs. Bherulal,
reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 849, this Court is
not inclined to issue notice to the Respondent on
the question of limitation in the present I.A.
5. Accordingly, the I.A. stands dismissed, so also
the Appeal preferred under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894.
(S. K. MISHRA)
JUDGE
AKPradhan
