Orissa High Court
Special Land Acquisition vs Gopi Biswal on 16 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
LAA No. 149 of 2008
Special Land Acquisition ..... Appellant
Officer, Talcher
Mr. G. Rout, ASC
Vs.
Gopi Biswal ..... Respondent
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
16.09.2022
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
08.
2. A direction was given vide Order dated 24.02.2016 for
taking steps for substitution of legal heirs of deceased sole
Respondent subject to the question of limitation , if any, to
be taken within a week. But till date no steps have been
taken by the Appellant in terms of the said Order dated
24.02.2016 and as per the Office Note, the petition for
substitution of sole Respondent, abatement and limitation
petition, have not yet been filed.
3. This Appeal has been preferred against the
judgment dated 02.05.1995, passed by the learned Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Kamakhyanagar in L.A. Misc.
Case No.96 of 1994. As per the Office Note, there is a
delay of 13 years and 133 days in filing the present
Appeal.
4. 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."
5. 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.
6. Accordingly, Appeal preferred under Section 54 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, stands dismissed.
(S.K. MISHRA)
JUDGE
Banita
