Orissa High Court
Zone Officer vs Durjodhan Naik on 16 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
LAA No.25 of 2014
Zone Officer, L.A. ..... Appellant
Kusumkhunti, Kalahandi
Mr. G. Rout, ASC
Vs.
Durjodhan Naik ..... Respondent
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
16.09.2022
Misc. Case No.200 of 2014 & LAA No.25 of 2014
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
06.
2. As per the Office Note, service return of limitation Notice
issued to the sole Respondent by usual process received after
valid service.
3. The Respondent is yet to appear in the present Appeal.
4. This Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated
25.01.2012, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Dharmagarh, Dist-Kalahandi in L.A.R. No.90 of 2011. As per the
Office Note, there is a delay of 2 years 133 days in filing the
present Appeal.
5. In the Misc.Case, filed under Section-5 of the Limitation
Act, the delay of 2 years and 133 days has not been properly
explained.
6. The apex Court in the case of Office of the Chief Post
Master General & Ors. Vrs. Living 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
appeals are liable to be dismissed on the
ground of delay."
7. 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 Appeal deserves to be dismissed
on the ground of delay and laches.
8. Accordingly, Misc. Case for condonation of delay as well as
Appeal preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, stand dismissed.
(S.K. MISHRA)
JUDGE
Banita
